First, I would bet my life on the (now) optical quality of that lens. And I would also bet my life on the FUTURE optical quality and MECHANICS of that lens, so well did I get to 'know' it. In fact, I, myself, would RATHER have that lens NOW than a duplicate that had not been opened and serviced. THAT is how sure I am of the cosmetic innards being essentially moot in importance. Its inherent physical integrity is like Gibraltar.
Frankly, I do not blame anyone for finding an inherent fault with my assertions. We are programmed to do such, especially with so many shady characters out there (me too!?!?). Yes, it DOES sound as if I am one of those sleazeballs (even if I am NOT).
But. at least, please be fair and open here. Take this: disclosure pertains to more than physical objects. For DECADES Popular Photography permitted one of the most egregious outfits in the photo business to advertise freely in its magazine and did so without even slightly warning its (many naive) readers to beware. I am talking about Cambridge Camera that used to do 'business' at 13th Street and 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Suscribers out of the NYC metro area were unaware of the reputation that that schlock house had and only when the Internet came into full bloom (with its open criticisms and condemnations) did that store close its doors. To make matters worse, folks, the eminent Herbert Keppler used to plug that outfit by suggesting to his readers that they buy this and that from that store. There is and was so much ignominy on the web about that place that one honestly wonders how Popular Photography got away with this. They used to have a checkrated system to 'assure' the readers that all advertisers were upright, but for a distant reader seeing their ads they had no idea that Cambridge was considerably more than a few points below the persistent integrity and forthrightness of an Olden or B&H. The integrity differential was literally 'night and day' but Pop Photo DID NOT WISH ITS READERS TO KNOW THAT. 'Nuff said?
Will the APUG moderators feel that David Lyga has gone TOO FAR in DISCLOSING the REAL truth behind and beyond advertising revenues? Then, perhaps, they, themselves will not be honoring FULL DISCLOSURE. Or how about the plastic Minox 35 which was given a good 'test' review by that same magazine and ONLY WHEN the Minox 35 went out of production did POP PHOTO 'disclose' that that model was plagued by light leaks? 'Nuff disclosure folks? 'Prescient' disclosure, folks? Be real.
I certainly do not mind being called into question, even if you are incorrect in your assessments. But to not be even and fair and totally transparent causes David Lyga to maybe think that there just might be alterior motives for some comments against him. I am used to this in life and criticism causes me to think hard, (rather than hardly, like some who are always winners tend to do). Still, I do appreciate your collective candor and wait, patiently, for the moderators to do what they deem essential. I appreciate your feedback and understand, fully, that nice words do not have to be spoken about me to make me feel fulfilled. But, do be even and transparent in your criticisms: that will make your parlance legitimate. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-12-2013 at 08:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
My biggest concern would be that you refer to yourself in the third person.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
Who do you think you are? Clifford Franklin?
Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
- Anton Chigurh
In the case of the broken light meter, and the lens, I do not think it serves a purpose to say who broke them. But it would be fair to say that the light meter will require replacement, as the seller knows this to be true. The lens could be advertised as fresh CLA, internal scuffs and marks, operationally perfect, exterior cosmetically perfect.
The lens cell was re-glued and is optically excellent.
If the seller wants to do business long term, reputation is everything. You can have the best equipment in the world, and if your reputation is bad so will your sale prices be.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
David - Two wrongs don't make a right (re post #32)
I don't see how you can justify withholding information, just because a camera store, and a magazine, did so. You say that responders haven't been "fair and totally transparent" when, in fact, were you to advertise the lens, without disclosure, you'd be the one being unfair, and non-transparent.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In the end, David, you need to just do what you feel is right, and deal with any consequences should they arise. While this is an interesting question I'm not sure that the discussion is very good for one's reputation given the amount of overjustification going on. At a minimum it pegs you for the kind of guy that asks a controversial question then won't accept the opinions that, predictably, are presented. If you want a "yes, dear" response this is the wrong crowd for that.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
So are you selling a lens or not????
I did not say that I do justify withholding information: I merely asked for feedback. I am fully aware that 'two wrongs do not make a right' but look at the whole picture and how we all routinely 'look the other way' when proper disclosure does not manifest. If you had a camera that had a baseplate that was INTERNALLY (ie, not visible to anyone) scratched would you disclose such. it would mean NOTHING to ANYONE. If you sneezed on the innards of a camera would you disclose such? Would you disclose that the camera was found in a haunted house? Would you disclose that a fortune teller said that bad luck would come to all who purchased this camera? (There ARE people out there who would belive such so do you wish to deprive such people of the 'truth'?)
Brian, you are one of the wiser ones here: you actually think! And let's state this outright: would I have 'denegrated' my reputation (My REAL name!!!) with these queries? Do I fear being misconstrued as evil and dubious? Essentially, not. I can stand behind legitmate gripes but hesitate to say that I can withstand unfair, and even more importantly, biased, one-sided criticism. Pop Photo (and other publications) ain't so pure, maybe. But do we criticize them? Or do we treat such like we treated our reverred Reagan: Teflon: nothing sticks no matter what. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-12-2013 at 09:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.
p.s. I'm sure you are a well-meaning and decent guy... but sometimes we all create impressions that are just as strong as the reality. Both are worth being acutely aware of!
Well meaning and a bit smarter than you think. I posed this question to see how deeply people delved. And I was right: there were the usual DL detractors (unnamed but always denigrating me) and then there were the extremely distressed ones who, nevertheless, adhered to manners and decorum, and then there were the characters like you, Brian, who honestly tried to see BOTH sides and probed and delved. I wanted to see what was out there and I would definitely NOT call this thread 'underexposed' (even though I used full box speed rating)! My post #32 does expose much.
Brian, I knew, fully, the hole I was digging for myself and how perceptions, not necessarily naked fact, would rule most opinions, but I did not fear getting trapped. I honestly do sleep well at night. (if you owned a restaurant would you be MORE concerned that your food handlers washed their hands after using the restroom or after handling paper currency? There, unfortunately, objective fact (and scientific validation) are usually subordinate to perception.) - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-12-2013 at 09:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
You say you're looking for feedback, but don't like when people tell you what they think? Uncool.
From the outside looking in, telling you honestly what it looks like to me, you are looking for justification to not disclose what you know has been done to the lens. And when somebody that doesn't agree with you dislikes the idea of not disclosing it, you don't want to hear it.
Why ask for feedback if you're so intent on arguing against the feedback? I do a fair bit of market research where I work, and when we find out what customers want and need, we have to listen to what they say and try to put our minds in the same place their minds are. We could go out and look for the answers we want to hear, but that usually doesn't work out very well in the end. It's better to seriously take the feedback, consider it from all aspects (their aspect, other customers' aspect, competitors' aspect, as well as our own aspect). All I'm saying is that if you ask for feedback you have to be prepared to listen and seriously consider the feedback from those you ask.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh