All Forum Comments
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Forum member "robbiec"? at 21/07/2017 - 11:10
My bad was looking at profile on Pentax forums
Mike-P wrote:
doubled wrote:
No, I looked yesterday and you are correct.johnjbloomfield wrote:
I also note the guy in question was active on this site 7 hours ago at my time of posting.
Am I looking at the wrong thing all this time? When I click on the user name and showing his portfolio, it still shows his last log in as 27th April 2017 - 09:49? Am I living in a different timeline? I also note the guy in question was active on this site 7 hours ago at my time of posting.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Forum member "robbiec"? at 21/07/2017 - 11:01
I also note the guy in question was active on this site 7 hours ago at my time of posting.
Hope this got resolved in the end.
Hope this got resolved in the end.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Forum member "robbiec"? at 20/07/2017 - 22:16
rewteeting can be automated.
A point earlier on this thread about not being able to pay by credit card with these sort of transactions - you can of course if the seller is willing to issue you a bill via paypal which then you can pay by credit card rather than logging in to paypal itself.
When I have engaged in private sales I always insist this is how I will pay and am usually happen to add on a couple of quid if the seller is twisting about paypal fees - i just see it as buying consumer protection.
A point earlier on this thread about not being able to pay by credit card with these sort of transactions - you can of course if the seller is willing to issue you a bill via paypal which then you can pay by credit card rather than logging in to paypal itself.
When I have engaged in private sales I always insist this is how I will pay and am usually happen to add on a couple of quid if the seller is twisting about paypal fees - i just see it as buying consumer protection.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Forum member "robbiec"? at 20/07/2017 - 22:15
Hi Chris
Thanks for your response this has allayed my concerns.
Many people messaged me on facebook adamant they leave the factory with a Zero shutter-count but I emailed Ricoh to verify this and they confirmed that a count of 1 is perfectly normal and just means the unit was checked in the factory.
They also said the cardboard will have occurred in packaging not a great endorsement of the silly plastic white cover they ship with.
Many Thanks
John
Thanks for your response this has allayed my concerns.
Many people messaged me on facebook adamant they leave the factory with a Zero shutter-count but I emailed Ricoh to verify this and they confirmed that a count of 1 is perfectly normal and just means the unit was checked in the factory.
They also said the cardboard will have occurred in packaging not a great endorsement of the silly plastic white cover they ship with.
Many Thanks
John
Chris@SRSWATFORD wrote:
Hi,
I've just noticed this and wanted to answer the points raised.
We have had a few batches of K-3's recently. This last batch is the final stock from Ricoh.
We wouldn't have used the camera as we have separate display stock so if anyone wanted a demo of the K-3 we would use the display unit. If we get any returns i.e unwanted, these are sold as 'Open Box' returns with full details of shutter counts and condition etc
I shutter-counted a K-1 the other day as we were updating the firmware for a customer and this was also at 2 when I'd taken 1 image. I've never had a definitive answer from Pentax about how many actuations can be on a camera when new. With Olympus it can range from 50 to 150!
The first odd thing was that the bos didn't have any form of seal. - They don't have a seal
The second that the paperwork had an extra sheet of bubblewrap under it that seemed to serve no purpose (like someone had unpacked it and couldn't remember where it went) - This is normally present on top of or below the manual so the box won't sag.
Thirdly the mount cover was loose and a very small bit of paper/card dust was on the mirror - easily cleaned off with a lens pen. - I've lost count of the times this has happened and it's due to Pentax using a cheap white 'slip-on' body cap instead of the black plastic bayonet type, which is sold as an optional extra. Nikon do the same and the same thing happens
Fourth the mount had a very slight scuff on it as if a lens had been mounted and removed and above the mount the body a very small mark I would never have noticed if my suspicions had not already been alerted. - I can't comment on this without seeing it, but as I mentioned above, we wouldn't have mounted a lens on it.
Fifth the LCD didn't have any sort of protective stciker on it, and it did have a finger mark. - They don't have an LCD protector on from the factory.
I hope this helps put your mind at rest. Please be assured that the item you have bought is brand new!
If you need to speak to me then please send me a PM or email.
Hi,
I've just noticed this and wanted to answer the points raised.
We have had a few batches of K-3's recently. This last batch is the final stock from Ricoh.
We wouldn't have used the camera as we have separate display stock so if anyone wanted a demo of the K-3 we would use the display unit. If we get any returns i.e unwanted, these are sold as 'Open Box' returns with full details of shutter counts and condition etc
I shutter-counted a K-1 the other day as we were updating the firmware for a customer and this was also at 2 when I'd taken 1 image. I've never had a definitive answer from Pentax about how many actuations can be on a camera when new. With Olympus it can range from 50 to 150!
The first odd thing was that the bos didn't have any form of seal. - They don't have a seal
The second that the paperwork had an extra sheet of bubblewrap under it that seemed to serve no purpose (like someone had unpacked it and couldn't remember where it went) - This is normally present on top of or below the manual so the box won't sag.
Thirdly the mount cover was loose and a very small bit of paper/card dust was on the mirror - easily cleaned off with a lens pen. - I've lost count of the times this has happened and it's due to Pentax using a cheap white 'slip-on' body cap instead of the black plastic bayonet type, which is sold as an optional extra. Nikon do the same and the same thing happens
Fourth the mount had a very slight scuff on it as if a lens had been mounted and removed and above the mount the body a very small mark I would never have noticed if my suspicions had not already been alerted. - I can't comment on this without seeing it, but as I mentioned above, we wouldn't have mounted a lens on it.
Fifth the LCD didn't have any sort of protective stciker on it, and it did have a finger mark. - They don't have an LCD protector on from the factory.
I hope this helps put your mind at rest. Please be assured that the item you have bought is brand new!
If you need to speak to me then please send me a PM or email.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 07/02/2017 - 13:25
HI Tony
I have emailed them. Hopefully they will come back to me tomorrow.
As much as anything they were becoming my goto for Pentax gear - i even paid a bit more from them once because i thought they were reliable so it's important to me to establish if this is a mistake or what.
Regards
John
I have emailed them. Hopefully they will come back to me tomorrow.
As much as anything they were becoming my goto for Pentax gear - i even paid a bit more from them once because i thought they were reliable so it's important to me to establish if this is a mistake or what.
Regards
John
Fishbones wrote:
Yes John it had a count of 2 from memory, not a quantity that would ring alarm bells for me if I am honest hence it didn't concern me at the time. The battery and charger etc were in touched and I didn't have one moments issue with it while I owned it. Like you it came from SRS and my knowledge in their aftersales support only helped give me confidence not to be concerned. One click on the shutter count may just tell me they checked your camera prior to despatch rather than a customer return that would I am sure have far more clicks.
I agree with Christopher however to contact SRS at least just to ease your mind. I hope you can enjoy your camera in the near future.
Regards Tony
Yes John it had a count of 2 from memory, not a quantity that would ring alarm bells for me if I am honest hence it didn't concern me at the time. The battery and charger etc were in touched and I didn't have one moments issue with it while I owned it. Like you it came from SRS and my knowledge in their aftersales support only helped give me confidence not to be concerned. One click on the shutter count may just tell me they checked your camera prior to despatch rather than a customer return that would I am sure have far more clicks.
I agree with Christopher however to contact SRS at least just to ease your mind. I hope you can enjoy your camera in the near future.
Regards Tony
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 06/02/2017 - 19:46
I have emailed them and asked them to explain.
As I said the cap was loose on the body as soon as i picked it up it just flopped off, even before I had the bubblewrap off the body.
As I said the cap was loose on the body as soon as i picked it up it just flopped off, even before I had the bubblewrap off the body.
RobL wrote:
Sounds distinctly iffy, cannot understand how anything would get on the mirror with the mount cap properly in place as it should be. A lens pen isn't the right tool for a mirror, and this should be pristine on a new body. Scratches? Definitely contact the seller and request a replacement or refund. If you are otherwise happy with it then negotiate a discount as it is not as described.
Sounds distinctly iffy, cannot understand how anything would get on the mirror with the mount cap properly in place as it should be. A lens pen isn't the right tool for a mirror, and this should be pristine on a new body. Scratches? Definitely contact the seller and request a replacement or refund. If you are otherwise happy with it then negotiate a discount as it is not as described.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 06/02/2017 - 19:34
I have emailed the shop SRS - but wouldn't expect a response until tomorrow.
I doubt it has been split as the Kit's I have bought in the past have included the lens in the same box this is definitely a body only box.
I doubt it has been split as the Kit's I have bought in the past have included the lens in the same box this is definitely a body only box.
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 06/02/2017 - 19:31
read the original post to the end
stu62 wrote:
if brand new i would be tempted to put a lens on the camera take a photo and see how many actions the shuter as done
if brand new i would be tempted to put a lens on the camera take a photo and see how many actions the shuter as done
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 06/02/2017 - 19:15
Thanks Tony, just to clarify - your k3 came to you with a shuttercount of 1 instead of zero?
Fishbones wrote:
Hi John, can't give you a definite answer to all your concerns but I have had the K10d, K3 and K1 all from new and none had a seal on the box ( a point made many times by others). None had any protective film on the lcd's either. Shutter count is as my K3 but other than the K10d no finger marks were present. This may put your mind at ease, I hope so as the K3 is really a great camera. Tony
Hi John, can't give you a definite answer to all your concerns but I have had the K10d, K3 and K1 all from new and none had a seal on the box ( a point made many times by others). None had any protective film on the lcd's either. Shutter count is as my K3 but other than the K10d no finger marks were present. This may put your mind at ease, I hope so as the K3 is really a great camera. Tony
Comment by johnjbloomfield posted on Was my 'new' camera previously unboxed? at 06/02/2017 - 18:48
My point is a wider one by paying by PayPal for goods and not as a gift as many people ask for. Therefore you are protected by distance selling regulations.
By not logging in and using a credit card you can be sure you are paying for goods and not just doing a transfer that is recorded as a gift because PayPal don't allow gifts via this method.
rewteeting can be automated.
A point earlier on this thread about not being able to pay by credit card with these sort of transactions - you can of course if the seller is willing to issue you a bill via paypal which then you can pay by credit card rather than logging in to paypal itself.
When I have engaged in private sales I always insist this is how I will pay and am usually happen to add on a couple of quid if the seller is twisting about paypal fees - i just see it as buying consumer protection.
Protection doesn't apply in instances like this!