| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Classified Ethics Question
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:33 AM on 09.21.10 |
->> If someone (who shall remain nameless) posts a classified ad for, say, a Mamiya RB67 and describes the camera as coming with a "120 roll film back" is it natural to believe, as I did, that the back will be a 6 X 7 back? Would you be annoyed if it came with a 6 X 4.5 back instead? A fact not mentioned in the ad? Would you think that a refund is due?
Just looking for opinions/consensus. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 10:37 AM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> Jim, were ephotos with the ad showing the 6x7 back? |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> I would assume it was a 6x7 back, but then again, you know what happens when one assumes. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:18 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> "were ephotos with the ad showing the 6x7 back?"
There was a photo showing the outfit but it wasn't obvious from the picture that there was a 6 X 4.5 back on the camera and there wasn't anything in the ad itself that said the camera had a 6 X 4.5 back attached. |
|
Tom Ewart, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> I would have to say it came with a "120 Roll film back" didn't it? Not the one you assumed it came with, but one none the less. Ask questions of the seller and don't assume. I agree that the description was a little vague, but not misleading.
I am in no way associated with Jim's trasnaction...
TE |
|
Dan Mendlik, Photographer
|
North Ridgeville | OH | USA | Posted: 12:49 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> Since the RB67 is known as a 6x7 camera I would assume it came wiht a 6x7 back. If I were selling it with a 645 back I would stated that.
Do you think it is possible the seller had no idea the difference in backs? In today's age there are not a lot of MF shooters so maybe he had no clue.
If I had gotten a 645 not 6x7 back I would be upset as I assume you are. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:11 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> Caveat emptor, Jimbo.
Sure, it would have been nice for the guy to state exactly what it came with, but it's really up to you to find out prior. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> Jim, does the seller have a 6x7 back for the camera? If so, he/she may be willing to send it to you. |
|
Steel Brooks, Student/Intern
|
Missoula | MT | United States | Posted: 1:47 PM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> I agree with Dan. It's a 6x7 camera, you would expect it to come with a 6x7 back. If the seller knew it was a 645 back I would ask for a refund, but if they honestly didn't know the difference, and had no idea what they were selling wasn't the standard, then I wouldn't worry about it and snag one off of KEH or ebay. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> Jim,
not much mercy here it seems. I would feel misled if I were in your shoes. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 3:00 PM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> The seller knows the difference between 6 X 7 and 6 X 4.5 |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
CAIRO | EG | EGYPT | Posted: 3:03 PM on 09.21.10 |
| ->> I agree, I would have expected a 6x7 back. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 3:40 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> The 67 in RB67 stands for 6x7. At some point in the transaction process it should have been made clear this was a 645 back. It's like buying a Lexus LS350 then finding out it has the 2.5L engine instead.
Seller didn't lie but they neglected to tell the truth. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:05 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> I think that if the camera is a known 6x7 model its indeed reasonable to assume it would come with a 6x7 back, and its up to the seller in this case to state otherwise.
Its like if I said I had a Canon DSLR for sale and that it came with battery, charger, caps, etc. If I ended up selling it with non OEM battery charger, 3rd party battery, generic caps and so forth, that information should of clearly been stated.
Its up to the seller to ask questions yes, but only up to the point of what a reasonable person would expect included with a given camera.
A RG67 shouldn't be coming with a 6x4.5 back unless its specifically stated, and in this case I think it falls upon the seller to make the situation right. You could probably file for a charge back with your credit card (assuming you paid for it with one, which you should of) because the item isn't as described and doesn't have the functionality an original RG67 would. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:50 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> Thomas, my brother, I love you, but the seller did lie. It's lying by act of omission.
I'm not a lawyer, Jim, but the expectation of it being a 6x7 back is reasonable since it's a 6 x7 camera.
I'd give the seller a chance to make it right and then go to the credit card company and make a claim for the price of a 6 x 7 back for the camera with him getting the other back returned to him. |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:52 PM on 09.21.10 |
->> Jim,
Im pretty boggled by your choice to post this here.
In full transparency, I am the one who sold Jim the camera.
My girlfriend recently acquired 2 used Mamiya RB 67 Pro SD outfits and we didn't really like them compared to our other film toys so we decided to sell them with a few other items I am currently selling.
I took detailed images of all of the items for sale and placed them in an online gallery here: http://clients.toddspoth.com/forsale (most of the images are of the Mamiya outfit) I took details of certain parts of the camera as well as an overall of what it all came with.
I put the items up for sale elsewhere and sold one to another colleague via another listserv with no issues at all.
Jim emailed me wanting to purchase the second outfit. After a few days of waiting for payment (and turning down other interested buyers) he paid and I shipped off the camera. In the days after he committed to the purchase and before he paid, I spent $10 buying a replacement 77mm Mamiya cap because it did not come with one. The photos or ad did not specify or show one, but I felt bad and went out of pocket for it.
Yesterday Jim emailed me complaining that there was no darkslide and that the back was the wrong type. Before I emailed back I consulted a few older friends in the area that had a lot more experience with the camera than I. They gave me their opinion and I thought it over. I looked back at the image gallery (which I clearly linked to in my classified ad) and saw that in several images it was VERY clear that the back was a 6x4.5 back. It was labeled on the film rewind lever and in some of the detail shots of the opened back, you can see the rectangular aspect ratio.
I honestly have never touched this camera before about a month ago and sincerely did not realize that the 67 in the model referred to the back. I assumed that the size was the size.
After thinking it through, I wrote Jim a detailed email last night explaining that there were images in the gallery that showed what the outfit looked like and explained that I would have answered any questions about the item honestly if he would have asked.
I also offered to sent him money to purchase a brand new darkslide from BH even though I never mentioned a darkslide in the ad or showed a photo of one when I took the detailed image of the whole outfit.
I let him know of several Ebay auctions for 6x7 backs that were all under $10. I told him that I would be willing to give him a full refund as well.
He wrote me an email back alluding to the fact that I tried to swindle or pull the wool over his eyes and demanding a refund (which I already agreed to) and an hour later creates this thread.
Im an honest and straight up guy. I have worked with tons of photographers and bought and sold things on SS for years without issue. I was not trying to omit anything or purposely leave out details in my ad. I was not around when the RB67 came out and have no knowledge of what is expected or not and to assume that I am knowledgable about the camera is about as stupid as assuming that the camera came with this and that without asking or looking at the detailed images.
I listed a few things in the ad about the camera...just what I knew. It was a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, 90mm 3.5 lens, customized waist level finder, and a 120 back. Maybe it was my bad for not knowing all the ins and outs of the camera, but right under the description there was a link to a gallery of images that showed the prospective buyer EXACTLY what they were buying and if after all that there were more questions, I would have happily answered them no problem.
I understand the frustration (I guess) but I emailed you telling you that I would give you the refund, yet you still feel the need to create this snide thread to call my "ethics" into question?
The first reply from Sam was "Jim, were ephotos with the ad showing the 6x7 back?"
To which your reply was "There was a photo showing the outfit but it wasn't obvious from the picture that there was a 6 X 4.5 back on the camera and there wasn't anything in the ad itself that said the camera had a 6 X 4.5 back attached."
That is funny since you emailed me a screenshot of my ad which shows the link to the gallery (http://clients.toddspoth.com/forsale)
I dont understand the need for the thread Jim, and am frankly a little confused and hurt that you would assume that I was trying to screw you over, but like I said in my recent email I am still willing work with you on it.
Anyone with any other questions, feel free to ask.
-Todd
http://toddspoth.com
http://toddspothblog.com |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 12:08 AM on 09.22.10 |
->> Jim,
I'll be happy to mail you a 6x7 back tomorrow... on the house.
-Blanco
P.S. Todd, the item I bought from you showed up just as described and well packaged. Thanks |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:44 AM on 09.22.10 |
->> I've been trying to keep my positivity up by limiting my time on this forum, and almost posted this first paragraph yesterday, but then decided not to because it seems the wolfpack was already off and running in one direction.
But now I will.
http://www.mamiya-usa.com/rb67-pro-sd.html#Specifications
Look at the specs of this camera, as provided by Mamiya. It shows a variety of backs available for the camera. Mamiya is not being deceptive are they? There are simply different configurations. It is possible it was an honest mistake on the seller's part, or wasn't something they were absolutely necessarily aware of.
Also, I'd discovered who the "unnamed" party of this was via a simple Google search yesterday–Google cache is pretty amazing.
Now, about this thread in general:
A few years back I was part of a transaction via the classified that took a while to sort out. He'd said he was very interested, then it took a few days past the go date for an email saying the Paypal process had started–turns out he had a crazy couple of days for personal reasons. No big deal. Then there were problems with the buyer's Paypal account transferring money to my Paypal account because, it turns out, there was a copy-paste error that truncated my email address for Paypal. And then I had a family emergency that delayed my shipping a few days after it all got sorted out from the buyer's end. But in the end, the money was transferred correctly, the tripod arrived to the buyer, and all was well and good in this corner of the world. I can only imagine what the public outcry would be if this happened today.
Remember when everyone rallied for the option to only sell to Sportsshooter members? Perhaps it is time to update that checkbox to choose to only sell to non-members! |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:37 AM on 09.22.10 |
->> Todd. I didn't name you in my original posting but since you've decided to come forward on your own:
"Im pretty boggled by your choice to post this here."
We had a difference if opinion about whether an RB67 with a 645 back should be labeled as such. I wanted to get the group's opinion on the matter and so posted here without mentioning your name.
"I took detailed images of all of the items for sale and placed them in an online gallery here: http://clients.toddspoth.com/forsale"
I didn't go to your gallery but went by 1) the picture of the entire outfit posted with the ad, 2) your emailed confirmation that everything was in working order and 3) the trust that I have acquired over the years dealing with Sportsshooter members.
"After a few days of waiting for payment (and turning down other interested buyers) he paid"
I don't appreciate the implication of that. You know that there was a couple of problems with PayPal.
"I spent $10 buying a replacement 77mm Mamiya cap because it did not come with one. The photos or ad did not specify or show one"
I didn't expect a lens cap.
"I also offered to sent him money to purchase a brand new darkslide from BH even though I never mentioned a darkslide in the ad or showed a photo of one when I took the detailed image of the whole outfit."
I referred to the lack of a dark slide as a "small problem" as a joking prefix to what I considered the "big problem" of the 645 back.
"I let him know of several Ebay auctions for 6x7 backs that were all under $10."
I've checked on Ebay and while I see quite a few 6X7 backs for anything from $80 and up I see nothing for $10. Ebay's "completed" listings show backs sold for $50 and up but nothing near $10.
"I told him that I would be willing to give him a full refund as well."
What you wrote me was, "If you really are persistent on returning the camera I can see about that" which, as far as I can see, isn't a firm commitment to give me a refund. If you'd said, "I'll refund your money when I get back from this assignment" I'd have been more than satisfied.
"He wrote me an email back alluding to the fact that I tried to swindle or pull the wool over his eyes and demanding a refund"
What I wrote was, "The listing (attached) says "120 back", which anyone buying an RB67 would assume means a 6 X 7 back. A 6 X 4.5 back is a significant deviation from normal specs and should have been noted. I would like to return this for a refund, unless you have a 6 X 7 120 back you'd like to swap out." Which seems like a polite and reasonable thing to send. There was no mention of swindling or wool pulling.
"I was not around when the RB67 came out and have no knowledge of what is expected or not and to assume that I am knowledgable about the camera is about as stupid as assuming that the camera came with this and that without asking or looking at the detailed images."
I'm sorry but if you're going to be selling something you ought to know a bit about it or, as many people do on Ebay, say outright that you don't know much about what you're selling.
"I understand the frustration (I guess) but I emailed you telling you that I would give you the refund, yet you still feel the need to create this snide thread to call my "ethics" into question?"
1) You didn't actually offer a refund, you wrote that you would "see about it". 2) In no way were your ethics called into question because I did not use your name and you'd already pulled the ad from the Sportsshooter classifieds.
"you emailed me a screenshot of my ad which shows the link to the gallery (http://clients.toddspoth.com/forsale)"
A gallery that I didn't look at feeling that the ad's picture and description were enough.
"I dont understand the need for the thread Jim"
I had an opinion that differed from yours. I wanted to see if the group's consensus was with mine or yours. Simple really.
"like I said in my recent email I am still willing work with you on it."
Done deal. Since you've offered me a refund I'll take you up on it and get the camera ready to ship. Let me know when you're back from your assignment (any idea how long that might be?) and I'll send it off. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> "Look at the specs of this camera, as provided by Mamiya. It shows a variety of backs available for the camera."
Correct. From the link you provided Mamiya says
Type
6x7cm format
Leaf Shutter
Revolving Back
Bellows Focusing
Single Lens Reflex
so they, at least, think that it's basic configuration is as a 6X7 camera. |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 12:34 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> I usually avoid these things, and honestly am not sure I want to post now...
But, NONE of this should be here on the public SS forums! This is a private dispute between two parties and should be kept private. This should never have been aired here on what is supposed to be a professional group of like-minded individuals. This opinion applies to all threads like this.
You are adults. Act like it and handle this in private. |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:43 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> This is ridiculous.
We had a difference in opinion and you wanted to get the group's opinion? Really? Was it necessary to label this "ethics" or say "WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS"? How old are you? 12?
Im sorry that you decided to skip looking at the gallery of detailed images of the camera. Im also sorry that I had to be the one to break the decades of trust with SportsShooter by actually selling an item that may not have been 100% what you ASSUMED was supposed to be. If I'm buying a camera, no matter where it is, Im going to look at the other photos. That's your fault, not mine.
You took several days before you even attempted Paypal, because you were out of town, probably complaining about something. I don't know about you, but I can pay someone via Paypal from anywhere in the world with my phone or iPad in a matter of seconds. And nothing was wrong with Paypal, you just couldn't figure it out. If you remember correctly I wrote you SEVERAL emails where I walked you through EXACTLY how to pay via Payal and then said to call me if you needed me to help over the phone. When you couldn't figure out how to avoid the fees I said "don't worry about it, Ill just pay the fees." And then you just let me pay the fees. In Texas, which you're obviously NOT from, we are curteous. At that point as a buyer you should have split or just paid the fees as a kind gesture, but whatever...foreshadowing perhaps?
WAIT...you DIDNT expect a lens cap? So you are saying over and over that IF I BUY A SO AND SO CAMERA I EXPECT THIS AND THAT, but you didn't expect the lens to have a lens cap?!? wow.
Now you are saying your email saying "Small problem: No dark slide. Big Problem: Its got a 6x4.5 back and not the 6x7 back I need." Since you are arguing semantics, syntax and clawing to dissect my emails in an attempt to save your skin in this thread...HOW in the hell can any of that (which is the word-for-word entire email I received, be considered a "joke"? Maybe you forgot to add in an emoticon?
You can argue semantics and this and that, but the bottom line is, I never emailed you anything back that was rude or out of line. I emailed you letting you know that there WAS images of what the camera came with EXACTLY and that there was no deception involved and still offered to several other solutions as well as the refund, yet you STILL needed to post this here.
Its the internet, I know you guys may not have that down there in McAllen, but its VERY easy to find something.
"Also, I'd discovered who the "unnamed" party of this was via a simple Google search yesterday–Google cache is pretty amazing. " - via Jack
If you wanted an opinion you could have posted the title as "Buy and Sell Question" and said "HEY GUYS I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING I SAW ON ANOTHER FORUM." or something to that nature. Your language was snide from the very first sentence and frankly out of line.
This is the best part here guys... AFTER ALL OF THIS, I posted and said my piece, and the VERY NEXT post after mine was from Brian Blanco an amazing dude who offered to sent you the back you wanted FOR FREE, but you insist on returning the camera?
Im speechless and frankly embarrassed that you are in Texas.
TO MY FELLOW SPORTSSHOOTERS:
I have a classified ethics question: Obviously if Brian is still willing to part ways with that other back that would be amazing and be the best case scenario. I would offer to pay him to ship it to (the person who shall remain nameless) as well as pay for a new darkslide.
But since (the person who shall remain nameless) just wants to be a complete ass and return the camera despite multiple people trying to make things right, should I do it?
...or should I tell (the person who shall remain nameless) to shove it?
Love always,
-Todd
http://toddspoth.com
http://toddspothblog.com
PS: Thank you to ALLLLLLLL of you that have emailed me positive notes regarding this matter. I appreciate all of them. I love you all. Kisses.
PPS: To the proprietors of the Tumblr, (you know who you are) please let this be featured! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Since ya'll are in texas, shouldn't you just man up and settle it the "texas" way.....six shooters at twenty paces? Yeeeeeehaaawwwwww!!!!!! Giddyap!!! |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Chuck,
Im ready. |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> I wasn't going to get in on this, but since you asked for opinions/consensus.....
Jim, yes I would expect a 6 x 7 back with this camera, BUT....they did make a variety of backs, and if you look at the gallery even casually it is VERY obvious that it is a 6x4.5 back (in shape as well as the plainly stated label on the back).
He offered your money back. Take him up on it. From the description here, it sounds like he offered you that, and you started a thread anyway....which is just not cool.
I've known Todd for a long time and he's the last person who would "pull a fast one" while trying to sell something. I believe him when he says he didn't know all the ins and outs about the camera.
I know you - not personally, but I've formed an opinion after reading your cumulative posts on SS over the years, and you seem like a very bitter, unhappy jerk.
This could have been worked out privately, and there really was no need to drag someone's reputation through the mud over a 200.00 old camera like this....especially when you admit that you didn't even look at the photos.
Let's move on now....please. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 1:31 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Jim, seriously?
Keep reading. And go check out some other MF cameras that have numbers in their names. You'll find it is not at all uncommon in the medium format world for there to be various back configurations available. Of course, the specs and the name show the largest image circle, but if you look at the very next block in the specs, it shows the various formats it accepts.
Type
6x7cm format
Leaf Shutter
Revolving Back
Bellows Focusing
Single Lens Reflex
VERY NEXT LINE AND BLOCK READS THIS:
Format
6x7cm, 6x4.5cm, 7.2x7.2cm (Quadra Back)
FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY THIS:
Interchangeable Film Magazines
Revolving Back
Dark Slide Pocket
Dark Slide Safety Interlock
Whatever. Seriously. Wow.
~~~
I'm done here....almost.
I think I'm going to go play with the Lensbaby Tilt Transformer for Olympus, Sony and Panasonic small format cameras. You know, the new m4/3 thingy that takes 35mm Nikon lenses and utilizes that larger image circle to allow for tilting focus on these smaller-chipped, shorter lens-to-focal plane distance cameras and watch as the Lensbaby team tries to explain over and over again on FB and their forums why it can't be done with Canon glass, and how yes, it accepts Nikon lenses for bending only on non-Nikon cameras.
What fun! |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 3:02 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> "This is ridiculous."
Pretty much.
"We had a difference in opinion and you wanted to get the group's opinion?"
Yup.
"Was it necessary to label this "ethics" or say "WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS"?
Sure. I felt that it was an ethical question and didn't name you, hence the phrase "who shall remain nameless" (no caps). My apologies to you in one sense as I completely forgot about the Google cache thing.
"You took several days before you even attempted Paypal, because you were out of town"
I was in Boston visiting my daughter. You asked me to use PayPal. In previous similar situations people have sent me a PayPal "invoice". I expected one from you. Then there was the question of who was to pay the PayPal fees. That got settled. I then paid you via PayPal as requested a whole five (5) days from my initial "I'll take it." Not too long IMO.
"I don't know about you, but I can pay someone via Paypal from anywhere in the world with my phone or iPad in a matter of seconds."
Congratulations. I cannot. I don't have an iPad and my cell phone is just a cell phone.
"And nothing was wrong with Paypal, you just couldn't figure it out."
I'm sorry if I'm not as experienced with PayPal as you are.
"If you remember correctly I wrote you SEVERAL emails where I walked you through EXACTLY how to pay via Payal"
And when I had problems I wrote you.
"When you couldn't figure out how to avoid the fees"
After you said that there would be no fees I was surprised to find that there would be so I wrote you about it.
"I said "don't worry about it, Ill just pay the fees." And then you just let me pay the fees."
As every other seller that I've bought something using PayPal has done.
"At that point as a buyer you should have split or just paid the fees as a kind gesture"
What? Why should I be the one to pay the fees? You're the seller here and the one making the money. I could have just have easily written you a check and paid for a stamp.
"WAIT...you DIDNT expect a lens cap? So you are saying over and over that IF I BUY A SO AND SO CAMERA I EXPECT THIS AND THAT, but you didn't expect the lens to have a lens cap?!?
Nope. a lens cap is no big deal. I probably have a few 77mm caps in a drawer. A 645 film back on a 6X7 camera, however, is what I consider a big deal.
"HOW in the hell can any of that (which is the word-for-word entire email I received, be considered a "joke"? Maybe you forgot to add in an emoticon?"
Perhaps it was too subtle for you.
"I never emailed you anything back that was rude or out of line."
I've never claimed that you did. I was similarly reasonable and polite.
"offered to several other solutions as well as the refund"
If you'd have offered a straight forward refund then none of this would be happening. Do you consider, "I can see about that" to mean the same as "I'll refund your money?" I don't.
"This is the best part here guys... AFTER ALL OF THIS, I posted and said my piece, and the VERY NEXT post after mine was from Brian Blanco an amazing dude who offered to sent you the back you wanted FOR FREE, but you insist on returning the camera?"
Brian's a prince. You've offered a refund. May I presume that it's my choice as to which offer to take? |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Go to KEH.com and you can get a LOT of neat stuff for the RB67 brought to you by Carl's Jr.
**DISCLAIMER**
I get $1.00 every time I say "brought to you by Carl's Jr." |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> "Jim, seriously?
Keep reading. And go check out some other MF cameras that have numbers in their names. You'll find it is not at all uncommon in the medium format world for there to be various back configurations available. Of course, the specs and the name show the largest image circle, but if you look at the very next block in the specs, it shows the various formats it accepts."
Oh come on. The normal configuration for this camera, as Mamiya says, is 6 X 7. It's got optional backs with different formats but the darn thing is called an RB67 for goodness' sake.
If you were going to buy a Hassleblad 500CM you'd assume it to be 6X6 even though they make 6X4.5 and digital backs for it. Same for a Bronica SQ or Rollei 66. You'd expect a Mamiya 645 to be, well, 6X4.5. These are all reasonable assumptions. |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> After thinking this through, Jim, and taking into account the lack of tact coming from someone at least my dad's age, I am redacting my offer for the refund. YOU made the choice to make this thread (which looks to have backfired, given the comments as well as the statistical data provided by the message board's lovely post rating system) YOU made the choice continue to avoid the gentlemanly road in this.
Like it was clearly stated by several (including me) in this great thread of yours, you should never assume and should always look at the photos before you purchase.
I would have been more than happy to give you the full refund, but after this thread, I don't feel I should go out of my way (and pocket) to appease someone who cannot act their age.
Good luck with the camera, I hope it brings you all the joy in the world. Enjoy the free roll of film I threw in there as well.
Cheers,
-Todd
http://toddspoth.com
http://toddspothblog.com |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 3:49 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Also since you asked for the "consensus", Jim, here is the statistical break down of the post data as of this writing:
Jim:
15 inappropriate
Todd:
32 informative
6 funny
1 huh? ( |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 3:50 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> ...not sure why the last of my post got left out but to the right of the parenthesis should read "gee I wonder who that was from." |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> I thought Liddy vs. Anzaldi were the undisputed heavyweight champs of sportsshooter.com verbal abuse and taunting, but this is developing into a "instant classic" and again reminds me of why being a member here is priceless. |
|
Chris Detrick, Photographer, Assistant
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 4:16 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> The word 'curmudgeon' comes to mind after reading this thread. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 4:23 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> FYSS will have weeks of content after this... |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 4:24 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Chris
There is a shooter on here ... who shall remain nameless ... in Toledo who is a tactful curmudgeon ... don't use the title he has earned in vain. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:04 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> "I am redacting my offer for the refund"
Let me make one more assumption and think that you mean rescinding (taking back) and not redacting (drawing up or making ready for publication).
Given that, it's no real surprise. It would seem that, although a man of Texas, you're not a man of his word.
"I would have been more than happy to give you the full refund"
If only you had stated that in your emails to me. You didn't.
"here is the statistical break down of the post data"
The data in answer to my question, which was basically "should an RB67 come with a 6X7 back" however, is 9 for, none against, 3 saying I should not have assumed. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
|
Montreal | QC | Canada | Posted: 6:22 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back ... |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 6:25 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Jim,
It seems from my own analysis and from the commentary, both public and private, from other members, that your year's of comments here on the message board are the racked gun in a Chekov play, and this thread is simply it's third act. Unfortunately for you that gun has seemed to backfire.
I'm sorry that you feel that I am not a man of my word, because I believe that I am, as others here have vouched as well.
-Todd
PS: Since you are grasping at straws and trying to discredit me by attempting to correct my word usage, I will clear this up here. "Redaction" can refer to the removal of certain details from a business deal. The above usage may be a bit of a stretch, but certainly is not incorrect. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:28 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Holy crap for the love of all that is HOLY! me and the mikester (anzaldi, to you guys) are PALS. I'm putting BOTH of you in a TIME OUT!!!! and don't make me get in my private jet and fly to texas and kick your butts. BTW, todd...jim is old like me....we get cranky...frequently we get our knickers in a bunch, we forget to change our depends....and we are NEVER, EVER wrong. I hope that explains this thread to you. love and kisses but I gotta go.....my beer is getting warm, adios. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> @richard....speed reader huh? showoff! |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 7:38 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> "I'm sorry that you feel that I am not a man of my word, because I believe that I am"
I'm sorry to say that your words have proven otherwise. You said that you would refund me my money, not in an email to me as I would have hoped, but here. Then you said that you wouldn't refund my money, less than 16 hours later.
"...may be a bit of a stretch..."
Big stretch.
It's "years" BTW, not year's...
And it's "Chekhov", not Chekov. Unless you were referring to Pavel (Star Fleet navigator) and not Anton (playwright).
:-)
(There's your required emoticon, since you seem unable to tell whether something is a joke without one.) |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:06 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I don't know where I would be without your decades of knowledge to guide me.
I look forward to seeing the wonderful (albeit rectangular) images you produce with your new camera!
Keep us updated!
~~**tOdD**~~
@}-->--- |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:18 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Somebody want to help me max out this thread so I can start V.2? |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 8:26 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Where's the LMAO button? |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> This thread makes me wonder why I still read these threads....
I'm glad I had nothing better to do this afternoon....
Y |
|
Trent Nelson, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 8:33 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Epic |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:35 PM on 09.22.10 |
->> dammit yamil, get a real time zone would ya? afternoon? everyone KNOWS it's EVENING!!!!
(I thought we all might need something even dumber to argue about) |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 8:36 PM on 09.22.10 |
| ->> Please David, no v.2. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|