A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Marketplace » Digital Photo Equipment For Sale
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FA- "Steal" a like-new Canon PS A75



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 2nd 04, 02:17 AM
rt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FA- "Steal" a like-new Canon PS A75

3 DAY AUCTION ENDS SATURDAY, 9:10 EST/ 6:10 LEFT COAST...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3837551923

LIKE NEW A75 when I thought I lost my other Powershot on vacation. Well, I
found my other cam in my bike bag so my loss is your gain. It has been
sitting in its box in the few weeks since I purchased it.

This camera is indistinguishable from BRAND NEW, the software/cables were
never opened, all original material is included.

I will include my original receipt with personal info blocked out should you
ever wish to avail of warranty work. I do not promise warranty
transferability, however.

It is a great and efficient little camera. Having AA batteries that last
forever versus proprietary ones that could leave you without power is a big
help!

eMAIL any questions to and remember to replace the God
of War with Mother Earth.'

Thanks,
Robert


  #2  
Old September 2nd 04, 03:43 AM
Tom Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Given that Canon warranties aren't transferable, and that this is an auction
with a Buy-It-Now price $16 less than a new camera from a dealer
(http://tinyurl.com/62hkn), how exactly is this a "steal"?

Tom P.

"rt" wrote in message
...
3 DAY AUCTION ENDS SATURDAY, 9:10 EST/ 6:10 LEFT COAST...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3837551923

LIKE NEW A75 when I thought I lost my other Powershot on vacation. Well, I
found my other cam in my bike bag so my loss is your gain. It has been
sitting in its box in the few weeks since I purchased it.

This camera is indistinguishable from BRAND NEW, the software/cables were
never opened, all original material is included.

I will include my original receipt with personal info blocked out should
you
ever wish to avail of warranty work. I do not promise warranty
transferability, however.

It is a great and efficient little camera. Having AA batteries that last
forever versus proprietary ones that could leave you without power is a
big
help!

eMAIL any questions to and remember to replace the
God
of War with Mother Earth.'

Thanks,
Robert




  #3  
Old September 2nd 04, 04:46 AM
rt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Given that Canon warranties aren't transferable, and that this is an

auction
with a Buy-It-Now price $16 less than a new camera from a dealer
(http://tinyurl.com/62hkn), how exactly is this a "steal"?

Tom P.


The price you link is $166.50 higher (more than 300%) higher than my $50.00
asking price (and I have no reserve, Mr. Nader) and $20 higher than my "buy
it now" price in a 3 day auction. Get it?

National retailers require dated receipts, not driver's licenses, to provide
warranty service, and I clearly indicated I did not "warranty" the warranty
and elected out of the same designation in the Ebay ad. While I can't
extend the same courtesy towards you, I am inclined to think interested
buyers are fully aware of the distinction.

Then again, if my experience is any judge, having owned an s10, s20, s45 and
s410, none of which EVER required service, the issue is moot.

Incidently, I guarantee I sell the camera in the auction and I am quite
certain the buyer will be just as pleased as the other satisfied buyers have
been from auctions varied from me in the past (100% positive seller
feedback, over a hundred total fb). The "invisible hand" is so much more
accurate than a tiresome and self righteous, troll... So, have at it- I'll
waste not another second with you.






"rt" wrote in message
...
3 DAY AUCTION ENDS SATURDAY, 9:10 EST/ 6:10 LEFT COAST...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3837551923

LIKE NEW A75 when I thought I lost my other Powershot on vacation. Well,

I
found my other cam in my bike bag so my loss is your gain. It has been
sitting in its box in the few weeks since I purchased it.

This camera is indistinguishable from BRAND NEW, the software/cables

were
never opened, all original material is included.

I will include my original receipt with personal info blocked out should
you
ever wish to avail of warranty work. I do not promise warranty
transferability, however.

It is a great and efficient little camera. Having AA batteries that last
forever versus proprietary ones that could leave you without power is a
big
help!

eMAIL any questions to and remember to replace the
God
of War with Mother Earth.'

Thanks,
Robert






  #4  
Old September 3rd 04, 04:16 AM
Tom Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For your edification, Mr. Nader was a crusader for fairness towards the
consumer, not low prices. Better check your history.

And last time I checked, $199 to $216 wasn't $20 either, so please check
your math.

My real point was that it was an auction and would sell to the highest
bidder. And unless you plan to place a bid yourself you then have no idea
what the final selling price will be, so your statement that this was a
"steal" is meaningless. Better check your English.

Implying that a blotted out receipt (as you put it) would suffice for a
warranty is misleading at best. Is your name and address a secret? If not,
leave them on the receipt so the buyer at least has a chance to say the
camera was a gift, since Canon warranties (which presumably you haven't read
or you would know) state "This limited warranty shall not extend to anyone
other than the original purchaser of the Powershot digital camera or the
person for whom it was purchased as a gift". Better read your warranty
before you offer it as a part of a sale. I don't know about you, but I"ve
never gotten a gift receipt with the "personal info blocked out"

Finally, I'm not a troll, merely a user of this group like you. If one is to
be measured by the number of happy customers they have or the amount of
their 100% positive eBay feedback (which, incidentally you do NOT have, well
then feel free to check mine out (http://tinyurl.com/57erj). I think my
1000+ (over 250 of those buyers) without any negatives is at least the equal
of your less than perfect feedback which includes just 6 buyers. So please
don't preach 100% positive feedback when you don't even have it yourself.

If anyone is a troll, I'd say it's you. Your posts have no name, no valid
email address and they make claims like warranties and perfect feedback that
aren't substantiated by any facts you've presented. It's easy to be right
when your anonymous, eh?

Tom P.


And I'd still like an answer to my original question, how exactly is this
auction a steal, except perhaps for you?

"rt" wrote in message
.. .

"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Given that Canon warranties aren't transferable, and that this is an

auction
with a Buy-It-Now price $16 less than a new camera from a dealer
(://tinyurl.com/62hkn), how exactly is this a "steal"?

Tom P.


The price you link is $166.50 higher (more than 300%) higher than my
$50.00
asking price (and I have no reserve, Mr. Nader) and $20 higher than my
"buy
it now" price in a 3 day auction. Get it?

National retailers require dated receipts, not driver's licenses, to
provide
warranty service, and I clearly indicated I did not "warranty" the
warranty
and elected out of the same designation in the Ebay ad. While I can't
extend the same courtesy towards you, I am inclined to think interested
buyers are fully aware of the distinction.

Then again, if my experience is any judge, having owned an s10, s20, s45
and
s410, none of which EVER required service, the issue is moot.

Incidently, I guarantee I sell the camera in the auction and I am quite
certain the buyer will be just as pleased as the other satisfied buyers
have
been from auctions varied from me in the past (100% positive seller
feedback, over a hundred total fb). The "invisible hand" is so much more
accurate than a tiresome and self righteous, troll... So, have at it-
I'll
waste not another second with you.






"rt" wrote in message
...
3 DAY AUCTION ENDS SATURDAY, 9:10 EST/ 6:10 LEFT COAST...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3837551923

LIKE NEW A75 when I thought I lost my other Powershot on vacation.
Well,

I
found my other cam in my bike bag so my loss is your gain. It has been
sitting in its box in the few weeks since I purchased it.

This camera is indistinguishable from BRAND NEW, the software/cables

were
never opened, all original material is included.

I will include my original receipt with personal info blocked out
should
you
ever wish to avail of warranty work. I do not promise warranty
transferability, however.

It is a great and efficient little camera. Having AA batteries that
last
forever versus proprietary ones that could leave you without power is a
big
help!

eMAIL any questions to and remember to replace
the
God
of War with Mother Earth.'

Thanks,
Robert








  #5  
Old September 3rd 04, 09:46 PM
rt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
For your edification, Mr. Nader was a crusader for fairness towards the
consumer, not low prices. Better check your history.


For YOUR edification, I used the comparison as a literary tool comparing the
behavior of self righteous folk who have lost their credibility thus
impeding their own "implied" objectives. Better read slower.



My real point was that it was an auction and would sell to the highest
bidder.


The self proclaimed purveyor of literal interpretation has a "real point"?
So, logically your other points are false? You do seem to like it both
ways.


And unless you plan to place a bid yourself you then have no idea
what the final selling price will be, so your statement that this was a
"steal" is meaningless. Better check your English.


If someone tells you it is "raining cats and dogs" do you immediately call
the ASPCA?
What the hell does "better check your English" mean, anyway?

Implying that a blotted out receipt (as you put it) would suffice for a
warranty is misleading at best.
Is your name and address a secret?


From trolls like yourself, you bet! Careless slanderers are probably
capable of much worse behavior, like perhaps stalking.

If not,
leave them on the receipt so the buyer at least has a chance to say the
camera was a gift, since Canon warranties (which presumably you haven't

read
or you would know) state "This limited warranty shall not extend to anyone
other than the original purchaser of the Powershot digital camera or the
person for whom it was purchased as a gift". Better read your warranty
before you offer it as a part of a sale.


You mean the part where I said "I do not promise warranty transferability"?

I don't know about you, but I"ve
never gotten a gift receipt with the "personal info blocked out"

Finally, I'm not a troll, merely a user of this group like you. If one is

to
be measured by the number of happy customers they have or the amount of
their 100% positive eBay feedback (which, incidentally you do NOT have,

well
then feel free to check mine out (http://tinyurl.com/57erj). I think my
1000+ (over 250 of those buyers) without any negatives is at least the

equal
of your less than perfect feedback which includes just 6 buyers. So please
don't preach 100% positive feedback when you don't even have it yourself.


Once again, my haughty and self-righteous troll, YOU CAN'T READ. "100%
positive seller" feedback is what I posted and what I have. Out of my other
100 plus feedbacks, the solitary negative comes from a unregistered scammer
who posted negative to me AFTER I paid for her smoke damaged item!
Something tells me you two should hook up.

And, Tom, I am not attacking your honesty - just your reading comprehension
skills and sense of self righteousness. It annoying to have to respond to
your distortions and lies.

But, as is the trend with rightwingers- attack first, irrespective of the
facts, and let the victim deal with clearing his name.

You know, I would be less than genuine when I say I don't feel inclined to
attack your honesty. I see in one of your Ebay ads, for a non-IS 300f/4,
you say "Yes, there's a newer, IS version. No, it's not nearly as sharp as
this one, check it out on photodo or photo.net or anywhere else...".
Perhaps Photodo had a bad sample of the IS? Perhaps you chose to ignore
Castleman's conclusion- "based on my testing, the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS is
every bit as sharp and contrasty as the non-IS version with the benefit of
image stabilization. Perhaps you were too busy pedaling your wares to note
Malcolm Stewart's posting of Canon MTF charts on dpreview.com that had been
printed by Canon in 1999 showing that the new IS version of the lens had at
least comparable, if not better, optical performance than the non-IS
version, in contradiction of the early photodo/PS stuff.

Sounds like honesty and seller's hype are yet additional issues for you to
consider, Tom. You're going to be busy this weekend.


If anyone is a troll, I'd say it's you. Your posts have no name, no valid
email address and they make claims like warranties and perfect feedback

that
aren't substantiated by any facts you've presented. It's easy to be right
when your anonymous, eh?



Oh, ducky- you can't READ or THINK.

I choose not to overload my email spamguard with addresses harvested from
usenet "reply to's"'. My original post here includes my first name and my
email address (in the body of the text) inviting any questions, and if you
are too dense to understand that, you have my pity.


Tom P.


And I'd still like an answer to my original question, how exactly is this
auction a steal, except perhaps for you?


And exactly why should I respond to any request from a self-righteous
slandering hypocrite?

The auction is doing great, by the way!

rt







"rt" wrote in message
.. .

"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Given that Canon warranties aren't transferable, and that this is an

auction
with a Buy-It-Now price $16 less than a new camera from a dealer
(://tinyurl.com/62hkn), how exactly is this a "steal"?

Tom P.


The price you link is $166.50 higher (more than 300%) higher than my
$50.00
asking price (and I have no reserve, Mr. Nader) and $20 higher than my
"buy
it now" price in a 3 day auction. Get it?

National retailers require dated receipts, not driver's licenses, to
provide
warranty service, and I clearly indicated I did not "warranty" the
warranty
and elected out of the same designation in the Ebay ad. While I can't
extend the same courtesy towards you, I am inclined to think interested
buyers are fully aware of the distinction.

Then again, if my experience is any judge, having owned an s10, s20, s45
and
s410, none of which EVER required service, the issue is moot.

Incidently, I guarantee I sell the camera in the auction and I am quite
certain the buyer will be just as pleased as the other satisfied buyers
have
been from auctions varied from me in the past (100% positive seller
feedback, over a hundred total fb). The "invisible hand" is so much

more
accurate than a tiresome and self righteous, troll... So, have at it-
I'll
waste not another second with you.






"rt" wrote in message
...
3 DAY AUCTION ENDS SATURDAY, 9:10 EST/ 6:10 LEFT COAST...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3837551923

LIKE NEW A75 when I thought I lost my other Powershot on vacation.
Well,

I
found my other cam in my bike bag so my loss is your gain. It has

been
sitting in its box in the few weeks since I purchased it.

This camera is indistinguishable from BRAND NEW, the software/cables

were
never opened, all original material is included.

I will include my original receipt with personal info blocked out
should
you
ever wish to avail of warranty work. I do not promise warranty
transferability, however.

It is a great and efficient little camera. Having AA batteries that
last
forever versus proprietary ones that could leave you without power is

a
big
help!

eMAIL any questions to and remember to replace
the
God
of War with Mother Earth.'

Thanks,
Robert










  #6  
Old September 4th 04, 07:06 AM
Tom Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


You know, I would be less than genuine when I say I don't feel inclined to
attack your honesty. I see in one of your Ebay ads, for a non-IS 300f/4,
you say "Yes, there's a newer, IS version. No, it's not nearly as sharp
as
this one, check it out on photodo or photo.net or anywhere else...".
Perhaps Photodo had a bad sample of the IS?


I'm sure we could argue the finer points of honesty for hours. But you need
to go back to photodo and look at their numbers, the 300 f/4 was rated 4.3,
the IS version 3.4. So I think I'll stick by my claim that the non IS I had
for sale is sharper, I can read the charts just fine. And I can also look at
my own results, which concur with MOST others that when based solely on
sharpness, the older lens is better. And at the time of the auction, I owned
both lenses, here's where I bought the IS one a few weeks earlier.

http://tinyurl.com/4zuyf

As far as I know, 4.3 is quite a bit higher than 3.4. I'm sure you have some
other way of putting it so 3.4 is actually better, if so, let's hear it.

Tom P.


  #7  
Old September 4th 04, 05:48 PM
rt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
.. .

You know, I would be less than genuine when I say I don't feel inclined

to
attack your honesty. I see in one of your Ebay ads, for a non-IS

300f/4,
you say "Yes, there's a newer, IS version. No, it's not nearly as sharp
as
this one, check it out on photodo or photo.net or anywhere else...".
Perhaps Photodo had a bad sample of the IS?


I'm sure we could argue the finer points of honesty for hours. But you

need
to go back to photodo and look at their numbers, the 300 f/4 was rated

4.3,
the IS version 3.4. So I think I'll stick by my claim that the non IS I

had
for sale is sharper, I can read the charts just fine.


Oh, I see- it is a claim! As in "To state to be true, especially when open
to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate
claiming many supporters" .

Thanks for proving my point.


And I can also look at
my own results, which concur with MOST others that when based solely on
sharpness, the older lens is better. And at the time of the auction, I

owned
both lenses, here's where I bought the IS one a few weeks earlier.

http://tinyurl.com/4zuyf

As far as I know, 4.3 is quite a bit higher than 3.4. I'm sure you have

some
other way of putting it so 3.4 is actually better, if so, let's hear it.

Tom P.


Still having trouble reading, I see.






  #8  
Old September 6th 04, 05:23 AM
Tom Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, it's a claim. One I can substantiate from testing them side by side,
not merely repeat something I heard or read somewhere like you. Facts versus
hearsay, quite a convincing debater you are, mr. anonymous stealer. If I'd
known you could handle a dictionary, I"d have had you looked up the noun
form of steal. Oh well, it's water under the bridge now.

I'm glad folks had the common sense to realize your camera wasn't new and
bid accordingly, too. About 75-80% of new price, just about what a used,
current camera in good shape SHOULD sell for.

Tom P.


  #9  
Old September 6th 04, 06:46 PM
rt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's a claim. One I can substantiate from testing them side by side,
not merely repeat something I heard or read somewhere like you.


Describe and prove your testing methodology and distinguish your results
from those who have arrived at dissimilar conclusions. Until then, I will
treat your statement as ad-hoc, anecdotal "CYA".

Facts versus hearsay, quite a convincing debater you are, mr. anonymous
stealer.


Funny- the terms I use for you are honest descriptors I can readily prove.
Your insults are merely additional slander.

If I'd known you could handle a dictionary, I"d have had you looked up the
noun form of steal. Oh well, it's water under the bridge now.


Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously, you
displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to boot
when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS 300f4
is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness "claim" as
FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is irrelevant. Plenty of
professionals have questioned the sample quality of the early model IS lens
tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have conveniently omitted.


I'm glad folks had the common sense to realize your camera wasn't new and
bid accordingly, too. About 75-80% of new price, just about what a used,
current camera in good shape SHOULD sell for.


I was DELIGHTED with the auction results. Unlike you Tom, the winner could
read and he too will be quite happy with the camera.


Tom P.


rt "wonder when Netcop Tom will finally comprehend "like new"?"



  #10  
Old September 8th 04, 12:03 AM
Tom Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Don't you think, as one who takes his role as a Usenet cop so seriously,
you displayed not only hypocrisy, but a distressing lack of honesty to
boot when you did not even mention that MANY reputable sources feel the IS
300f4 is every bit as sharp as the pre-IS? You stated your sharpness
"claim" as FACT. Whether it is true (which it isn't) or not is
irrelevant. Plenty of professionals have questioned the sample quality of
the early model IS lens tested by Photodo, yet another fact you have
conveniently omitted.


Are you making this stuff up as you go?

Photodo: 4.3 for the non-IS, 3.4 for the IS version.

Bob Atkins on Photo.net: Note that the IS lens has 15 elements in 11
groups, while the original 300/4L has 8 elements in 7 groups. Adding
elements can result in greater susceptibility to flare and loss of
sharpness. Reports are that the 300/4L USM IS is a sharp lens. However the
Popular Photography test (July 1997) seemed to show it was very similar in
sharpness to the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro, while George Lepp's test of the
original 300/4L showed it significantly sharper than the Sigma 300/$ APO
Macro.

And Bob Atkins review is the only official one on Photo.net, so your
reference to these "MANY" makes no sense. Who are they? Where are they?
There are certainly lots of comments and opinions, but I prefer to stick to
opinions of professionals or my own tests, not those of folks who will
always prefer the lens they own or have read good things about. You may not
agree, but I haven't seen your tests of the two lenses from which you drew
your conclusions, perhaps you could send them to me or publish the link.

Oh, you don't own them both and haven't tested them side by side? Too bad, I
thought you had something to add.

tomp


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon Siddhartha Jain Digital SLR Cameras 13 January 16th 05 05:35 PM
Which Canon lens/es? David French Digital SLR Cameras 3 December 7th 04 10:57 PM
FS: Canon Eos Elan II System---MINT! Jeff K 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 May 2nd 04 09:54 PM
FA Canon EOS bodies, "L" Lenses, access... J&C 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 20th 03 04:28 AM
TRADE canon for canon gene 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 November 1st 03 06:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.