Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,954   Online: 795
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78
  1. #51
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,391
    Images
    60
    Disclose everything you know about the condition of your product. Consider disclosing as well what you don't know about the condition of your product (e.g. I bought the camera used, and have never had to have it serviced).

    Potential customers will come to their own decisions about what factors are relevant to their buying decisions.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #52
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,366
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    If I were buying that lens, I would want to know before buying it that it had been serviced non-professionally. Even if you are right, and nothing will happen to it, I would be sufficiently concerned that something would go wrong with it as a result of the unprofessional repair that I would not buy it. And if I found out after purchasing that it had been worked on in that way, and that amateur repair ended up costing me more money because it either caused a new problem or magnified the scope of another problem, I would be beyond irate at the seller. If I were to repair a cosmetically damaged camera by swapping out the top (or bottom) plate and thus removing the original serial number, not only would I disclose the fact that this had been done, but I would include the original plate with the camera as proof of the work and as documentation of the original serial number. As a buyer, I would much rather buy something with an unrepaired problem that had been disclosed and then pay to get it serviced myself instead of buying a mystery item that may be fine or may not be. All respect, David, but as you are not a professional repair shop, if you do a hack job on repairing a lens and it fails even two days after I buy it from you, I have no recourse because you're an individual seller with no business license. You can swear on a stack of bibles, your mother's name, or anything else you hold sacred that you did a good job and that there is no problem. But that's not a warranty, and "to the best of my knowledge..." doesn't count in a court of law.

  3. #53
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    See, Flying Camera, this is the situation I was trying to parse: I am NOT talking about a lens possibly breaking after a few days or even after a few years with heavy use. The work I did did NOT weaken the structure. I am talking about a lens that, IF MY VERY LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT, would work as well as one new, and as long. It is so difficult to ask people to speculate upon THAT VERY HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBLILTY because the mere mention of 'working on it without being a professional' conjures de facto ugly possibilties. (Just like the time I was at a flea market in a children's school on a weekend and I casually asked to use the restroom (at 63, nature calls often!): the horrified looks I got were genuinely priceless and it actually took me about five full minutes to understand why!) Again, I would bet my very LIFE upon that lens' integrity.

    However, Flying, your point is well made in that THAT argument I posed really does not matter in, at least, a theoretical sense: Irrespective of the functionality paradigm, buyers, indeed, can also be expected to have a RIGHT to know about its innards (if only to avert shock from a future repairman).

    But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this. In my opinion there is a marked difference between nondisclosure involving 'selling fuctional integrity' and 'selling dubious functionality that appears to be functional', even though it can be argued that both lack disclosure and both can be adjudged 'wrong'. However, there is a weighting required here in order to assess a proper moral value.

    My argument begins and ends with the utter assurance that the article in question can withstand the rigors that a virtually new article can. It does not take into even reasonable possibility that it will fail. (To NOT disclose such would be abhorent to me.) But, FlyingCamera, assuredly, I do also see your valid and important point. However, I wanted to assert my assurances (those averting the potential for failure) within my hypothetical argument. That dichotomy easily (and conveniently, for some) gets waylaid. - David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 06-13-2013 at 04:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #54
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,986
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Thus, Jon Goodman is a person of consummate integrity (and a good man). I guess I am not. - David Lyga
    He's certainly earned it.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this.
    Nobody in their right mind does, or woud do, that. One cannot disclose an unknown defect or condition. Your scenario is not an unknown defect or condition, but a known condition that does not affect functionality. Nonetheless, it is a known defect caused by heavy-handed repair efforts. The success of such efforts is not the issue here... it is the knowledge of the product's internal damage/defect.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    p.s. "utter assurance" is most valuable and respected when it comes from a bonifide expert who can certify (through testing, analysis, demonstration, or sufficient amounts of credible experience) that their attestation is correct and accurate. That is where a lot of folks are leary of your justification, David. No offense to you, of course... most of us do not have those credentials either.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,066
    p.s. Please forgive my interruption, Flying Camera... the questions were actually posed for your response.

  8. #58
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,042
    It would matter to me if the seller had purchased it from a flea market or bought it new.

    OK, to play Devil's advocate (and get myself flamed), why not look at it similar to purchasing an used car.
    You know, the type that had only one owner, a little old lady, who only drove it to church on Sundays. Almost always sold "as-is."

    Despite the large amount of work my family and friends have seen me do on my own vehicles, they never even consider that a used car may have been "serviced" by it's previous owner. They understand what they are getting into with a used car, but think any service was performed by a qualified mechanic. They will think the last owner abused it before thinking the owner did repairs. A reputable used-car dealer often does not know the fine details of a vehicle's history either.

    As much as we want to know the history of anything we purchase used, are we consistent? I always assume the owner of a used car may have done their own work, but haven't assumed that on used cameras - but will now

    Caveat emptor.

    Still, if someone had serviced themselves (or paid a professional) a camera that I was considering purchasing, I would want them to tell me - I'd tell them.
    I consider that the honorable thing to do.
    Truzi

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Thus, Jon Goodman is a person of consummate integrity (and a good man). I guess I am not. - David Lyga


    Jon Goodman has earned his reputation as such. You have not. Look, I don't know you at all, except online here on APUG. You may be a stand-up individual with high integrity. I have no ways to know that on individual basis. But honestly, things you've discussed, positions you took, and this very thread, does not give me the kind of confidence where I would be willing to send you money in exchange for your goods.

    In online community and classified system as such rely on reputation of the poster. Quite honestly, you've done everything you can to destroy your own reputation.

    That's my honest opinion. I'm sorry this is so harsh. But you seem like a kind of guy who wants things said straight.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  10. #60
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,366
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    See, Flying Camera, this is the situation I was trying to parse: I am NOT talking about a lens possibly breaking after a few days or even after a few years with heavy use. The work I did did NOT weaken the structure. I am talking about a lens that, IF MY VERY LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT, would work as well as one new, and as long. It is so difficult to ask people to speculate upon THAT VERY HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBLILTY because the mere mention of 'working on it without being a professional' conjures de facto ugly possibilties. (Just like the time I was at a flea market in a children's school on a weekend and I casually asked to use the restroom (at 63, nature calls often!): the horrified looks I got were genuinely priceless and it actually took me about five full minutes to understand why!) Again, I would bet my very LIFE upon that lens' integrity.
    David- what I am saying is that although I would have no reason to suspect you of lying or being deceitful in your assertion that you believe wholeheartedly that you are confident the cosmetic damage to the internal mechanisms will not effect mechanical failure in the future, as a consumer who is not so inclined to repeat your efforts to open the lens and inspect it because I know I lack the experience to do it without possibility of making any damage you caused worse, or causing greater damage of my own, I would be sufficiently suspicious that I would not want to buy the lens, period. To use the automotive analogy alluded to by another poster, if I were to shop for a used car and the private seller informed me that he/she did all the maintenance work on it him/herself, unless I KNEW the person's mechanical qualification, I would either not buy the car, or offer them a VERY low price because I would assume there would be significant maintenance in my immediate future.

    But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this. In my opinion there is a marked difference between nondisclosure involving 'selling fuctional integrity' and 'selling dubious functionality that appears to be functional', even though it can be argued that both lack disclosure and both can be adjudged 'wrong'. However, there is a weighting required here in order to assess a proper moral value.
    Actually, what I would feel in that circumstance would be required as a disclosure is, "I do not know the maintenance history of this camera/lens/etc, and I have not had it serviced". Knowing that, as a buyer, I can adjudge the value of the item and factor in the cost of servicing when I make an offer.

    My argument begins and ends with the utter assurance that the article in question can withstand the rigors that a virtually new article can. It does not take into even reasonable possibility that it will fail. (To NOT disclose such would be abhorent to me.) But, FlyingCamera, assuredly, I do also see your valid and important point. However, I wanted to assert my assurances (those averting the potential for failure) within my hypothetical argument. That dichotomy easily (and conveniently, for some) gets waylaid. - David Lyga
    What I'm saying is that you can assure and assert with all the passion, conviction and soul in the world that your maintenance efforts have had no detrimental effect on the object. Because you are not David Lyga, graduate of National Camera Repair School, Class of 1973, Rollei Factory Trained technician, etc etc, but instead David Lyga, camera user and occasional reseller, your assurances would leave me with no comfort whatever as a buyer, because if you really knew what you were doing, the damage would not have happened in the first place. To revert back to the auto maintenance analogy for a moment, I can remove a dented fender on my car and replace it, and replace the damaged front suspension components. I can also assure you that there will be no issue with said components. But as a buyer, you would be a fool to accept that assurance and still pay market value for the car.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin