[thoughton]

Wow, you are a tough nut in the comprehension department.
Is this deliberate?
But to turn this back to you, are you saying that in order to discharge their warranty obligations the replacement has to be in worse condition?
You have kind of run yourself out of options here.
You are disagreeing with me that the replacement has to be better, so you must be saying that it needs to be worse in order to fulfill warranty.
I'm not quite seeing your logic.
Perhaps it's the time change. It's early her and late there?

My last post is directed to you too

You said this:

The one he sent in was broken, the one they sent back isn't broken.
By definition, the replacement is in better condition than the old one.

I said this:

Suppose Pentax fixed the freezing and glitches, but left a big scratch on the body? Would that be acceptable?

This fulfils your premise that the old camera wasn't working, but the new camera is working, therefore the new camera is 'better'. Would you therefore accept the scratched camera? If not, then could you explain why not?

[dgaies]

I think everyone understands 'warranty' to mean the replacement will be in at least as good a condition as the original was.

First of all, what "everyone understands" and what is legally required are two separate things.

Suppose Pentax fixed the freezing and glitches, but left a big scratch on the body? Would that be acceptable? I think not.

I agree that Pentax damaging a body that was sent in to be fixed would be unacceptable. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion as that is wholly different from sending back a replacement with a higher shutter count.

Now suppose the shutter count on the new camera was 100,000 clicks? Would that be acceptable? How about 50,000 clicks? How about 25,000?

The point is that the warranty replacement should not only completely fix the problem, but all other aspects of the camera should be in at least as good condition as the original. That isn't the case here.

Certainly the higher the shutter count, the less equivalent the replacement body would be in comparison to the one that was sent in with 3k clicks. But as I, and other have pointed out, most people would prefer a working body with 13k clicks to one with issues and only 3k clicks. I know you'd prefer the best of both worlds, but given that Pentax was unable to replicate the issue and fix the OP's camera, I don't think the replacement they offered is a terrible outcome. Again, not ideal, but better than if they just sent it back as-is (which they could have very easily done).

[thoughton]

First of all, what "everyone understands" and what is legally required are two separate things.

Possibly a difference in our legal systems then. Over here what "everyone understands" is an important part of the law. Something about A Man on the Clapham Omnibus

I agree that Pentax damaging a body that was sent in to be fixed would be unacceptable. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion as that is wholly different from sending back a replacement with a higher shutter count.

Certainly the higher the shutter count, the less equivalent the replacement body would be in comparison to the one that was sent in with 3k clicks. But as I, and other have pointed out, most people would prefer a working body with 13k clicks to one with issues and only 3k clicks. I know you'd prefer the best of both worlds, but given that Pentax was unable to replicate the issue and fix the OP's camera, I don't think the replacement they offered is a terrible outcome. Again, not ideal, but better than if they just sent it back as-is (which they could have very easily done).

You're being much more lenient with Pentax than I would be. Someone earlier drew a comparison with cars which I think was particularly apt. e.g. Finding out your car is a lemon, and returning it only to receive a replacement with worn out tires.

[dgaies]

Possibly a difference in our legal systems then. Over here what "everyone understands" is an important part of the law. Something about A Man on the Clapham Omnibus

That could very easily be the case as I'm sure the requirements vary from country to country (they can even vary from state to state within the US).

You're being much more lenient with Pentax than I would be. Someone earlier drew a comparison with cars which I think was particularly apt. e.g. Finding out your car is a lemon, and returning it only to receive a replacement with worn out tires.

Perhaps the better analogy would be returning the lemon with 3,000 miles and getting a replacement with 13,000 miles But to exapnd on your point about worn out tires, it brings up the point that there are many factors that would need to be taken into account when trying to decide if the replacement body is in "better" condition than the body that was sent in to be fixed. The shutter count might be higher, but perhaps the body itself is in better cosmetic condition. My point is that shutter count is only one measure of a used body's condition, and in my opinion probably not a very important one. People often use it was a means by which to determine how "used" a camera body is, but much like miles on a car, it's not always the best indication of condition. A body could have 13k worth of shots in a studio without a single lens change and be in pristine condition while another body might have 3k worth of shots but was banged around out in the field during the same time period.

Perhaps I'm being more lenient with Pentax than others would be. Given this particular situation, specifically that they could not replicate the issue, I would have expected their default position to be returning the camera to the user. Instead they offered a replacement body, albeit with a higher shutter count, so from that perspective I believe it was a more positive outcome for the OP than getting his original body back. Could they have gone one step further and send him a newer (or new) body instead? Sure, and that would have been even better for the OP. But they didn't, and all things considered, I don't think the final outcome was that bad.

[Wheatfield]

This fulfils your premise that the old camera wasn't working, but the new camera is working, therefore the new camera is 'better'. Would you therefore accept the scratched camera? If not, then could you explain why not?

Your example isn't germaine to this particular discussion, but lets take it as a given that cosmetic damage on a repaired/replaced camera falls under the not acceptable definition.
Lets run with your wishes for a moment. You want the replacement to be "in at least as good condition as the original".
How does Pentax we ensure that it is?
And how can you be sure that a shutter with a few thousand cycles is really better than one with 10-15K since they can fail at any time?

[thoughton]

Perhaps the better analogy would be returning the lemon with 3,000 miles and getting a replacement with 13,000 miles But to exapnd on your point about worn out tires, it brings up the point that there are many factors that would need to be taken into account when trying to decide if the replacement body is in "better" condition than the body that was sent in to be fixed. The shutter count might be higher, but perhaps the body itself is in better cosmetic condition. My point is that shutter count is only one measure of a used body's condition, and in my opinion probably not a very important one. People often use it was a means by which to determine how "used" a camera body is, but much like miles on a car, it's not always the best indication of condition. A body could have 13k worth of shots in a studio without a single lens change and be in pristine condition while another body might have 3k worth of shots but was banged around out in the field during the same time period.

Perhaps I'm being more lenient with Pentax than others would be. Given this particular situation, specifically that they could not replicate the issue, I would have expected their default position to be returning the camera to the user. Instead they offered a replacement body, albeit with a higher shutter count, so from that perspective I believe it was a more positive outcome for the OP than getting his original body back. Could they have gone one step further and send him a newer (or new) body instead? Sure, and that would have been even better for the OP. But they didn't, and all things considered, I don't think the final outcome was that bad.

Yes, that's a better example In fact I think that was the actual example he gave, not sure why I thought he had said tyres.

I would still not be happy to 'lose' 10,000 miles (or shutter clicks). In both the case of the car, and the camera, the 'lost' miles/clicks equates to a demonstrable reduction in value. So the OP has suffered financial loss. It seems pretty clear cut to me I wouldn't be willing to accept it, and I don't think the OP should either. You and Wheatfield clearly feel differently.

[mokey]

Ok! First of all, I'm a she... The problem with the freezing etc.. was happening more and more often. I didn't bother with sending it in when it happened once in awhile. I could easily deal with that. Easy enough to pop out the battery, and pop it back in. I sent it in when the camera did it about 5 times in an hour period, during a hockey game that I was covering. It didn't record any of the photo's-made a nasty noise and froze. At that point, it was no longer acceptable. I had phoned Pentax, and they originally tried to say it was my lenses and SD card. So how come it has not happened once since I've been using a loaner camera (with same lenses and same SD card) This proves to me that it was not just a "random" thing. Just to note, that my first K5 had stains, and was replaced with another K5 (the one that I sent in) that developed stains also. They replaced the sensor a few months back. So all in all, I haven't even had my own K5 for a good part of the time. My concern with the number of actuations, is that if I decided to sell it a year or so from now (to upgrade to a hopefully even better camera) that the shutter issue would affect the sale. The most questions received when I was selling my K20d were regarding how many shutter actuations were on the camera.
I don't want a brand new camera- (well I would, but I don't expect it) I would think that getting a comparable camera to what I had would be in order. I have had nothing but problems with my K5 purchase since I bought the thing (for $1600 I might add). I still love the camera, despite all the issues. When it works, it's great. Thankfully, Don's Photo has been nothing but helpful.

[dgaies]

Yes, that's a better example In fact I think that was the actual example he gave, not sure why I thought he had said tyres.

I would still not be happy to 'lose' 10,000 miles (or shutter clicks). In both the case of the car, and the camera, the 'lost' miles/clicks equates to a demonstrable reduction in value. So the OP has suffered financial loss. It seems pretty clear cut to me I wouldn't be willing to accept it, and I don't think the OP should either. You and Wheatfield clearly feel differently.

I agree that having an extra 10k clicks (or 10k miles on a car) does equate to a reduction in value. At the same time, had Pentax returned the camera to the OP and said "we can't find an issue, here's your camera back" I think we'd all agree the camera would be worth even less (to both him and a buyer down the road) given the fact that the glitches has not been fixed.

So I suppose how you feel about the outcome depends in large part about what your expecatons where once Pentax was unable to reproduce the issue.

[Wheatfield]

Ok! First of all, I'm a she... The problem with the freezing etc.. was happening more and more often. I didn't bother with sending it in when it happened once in awhile. I could easily deal with that. Easy enough to pop out the battery, and pop it back in. I sent it in when the camera did it about 5 times in an hour period, during a hockey game that I was covering. It didn't record any of the photo's-made a nasty noise and froze. At that point, it was no longer acceptable. I had phoned Pentax, and they originally tried to say it was my lenses and SD card. So how come it has not happened once since I've been using a loaner camera (with same lenses and same SD card) This proves to me that it was not just a "random" thing. Just to note, that my first K5 had stains, and was replaced with another K5 (the one that I sent in) that developed stains also. They replaced the sensor a few months back. So all in all, I haven't even had my own K5 for a good part of the time. My concern with the number of actuations, is that if I decided to sell it a year or so from now (to upgrade to a hopefully even better camera) that the shutter issue would affect the sale. The most questions received when I was selling my K20d were regarding how many shutter actuations were on the camera.
I don't want a brand new camera- (well I would, but I don't expect it) I would think that getting a comparable camera to what I had would be in order. I have had nothing but problems with my K5 purchase since I bought the thing (for $1600 I might add). I still love the camera, despite all the issues. When it works, it's great. Thankfully, Don's Photo has been nothing but helpful.

Given that background, have you checked the lemon laws to ensure that they shouldn't be replacing with a new camera? I'm pretty sure our lemon law allows for that.
Of course, you might now have a camera that has been very thoroughly tested and will outlast any expectations.
I'm not sure if I'd be too concerned about resale value, I have a feeling that the K5 is going to have poor resale value no matter what, since it is prone to a large variety of issues that can crop up with no warning, and frankly, I don't see that as being an issue with serious buyers, even though it would be a standard question simply because that information is readily available.
Shutter actuations really doesn't give an accurate snapshot of how good or bad a camera has been, though a camera with low actuations is probably more likely to have been in the shop for extended service intervals than one with moderate to high actuations where the user has actually gotten to use the equipment.
If it is that bid a deal to you, get Don's to go to bat for you. They seem to have a good relationship with Pentax, and is, as you noted, an awesome retailer. I rarely buy from anyone other than Don's for that reason.

[reeftool]

Many companies just replace a broken unit returned for warranty repairs with a factory rebuilt unit. It ensures a fast turnaround time. It would surprise me more if a camera maker didn't do this on occasion. I've worked a a fleet mechanic for 40 years and this is standard practice in the tool industry. Another practice that is common is a flat rate replacement for out of warranty returns. A few electronic tool mfgrs. offer this. I had a bad Beckman digital mutli meter replaced once for $60 after sending the old one in for repair which was less than half the price of buying a new one and it came with a 60 day warranty.

[JeffJS]

How did you confirm the number of actuations? From the image number (which can be incorrect due to different reasons) or from the actual EXIF information?

The image counter recycles back to 1 after 9999. Only the actual shutter count in EXIF could be more than 10K. Rename the last photo taken in your camera to 9998 or something like that and you'll see it on your own camera.

[mokey]

The image counter recycles back to 1 after 9999. Only the actual shutter count in EXIF could be more than 10K. Rename the last photo taken in your camera to 9998 or something like that and you'll see it on your own camera.

FYI, I (the OP) used 2 different programs to check the shutter actuations on what is now all 3 of the camera's (the one sent in, the loaner, and the "replacement") I used myshuttercount.com, and exif tool, and they both came up with the same counts (sent one 3082, replacement 136650 BTW the loaner has only 2000 actuations, but has an issue with it's rear e-dial.

[jeallen01]

...Perhaps the better analogy would be returning the lemon with 3,000 miles and getting a replacement with 13,000 miles ...

A few years ago I bought a new cell/mobile phone from a retail shop of one of the major service providers in the UK. I didn't use the phone much, but, 3 months later, I got the strong impression that it was losing stored data such as phone numbers. I took it back to the shop and they got it repaired locally because they said that would be quicker and I was going on holiday in 2 weeks. Other than the data issue, the phone was absolutely pristine as it had spent most of its life in a protective case.

However, when I got it back about 10 days later, it was clear that this was not my original phone but someone else's old and heavily used one - so heavily used, in fact, that the numbers had worn off several of the keys, and there were stored numbers in it that were definitely not mine (and some of those looked "very suspicious").

When I pointed this out to the shop assistant he got really angry and said "OK, we'll get a new keypad fitted it". At this I literally exploded and had a standup argument with him in the presence of other customers. Having got nowhere, and to cut a very long story short, I kept that phone for holiday use, but, before I went, I wrote directly to the service provider's MD - and pointed out that the shop, and thus themselves, were in breach of UK/EU-wide law which states that any item which develops a fault within 6 months of purchase from new is considered to have been faulty at the time of delivery - and thus must be repaired/replaced without quibble.

When I got back from holiday, there was a letter from the MD's office apologising for the treatment I had received and saying that a new phone was waiting for me at the shop, and the manager of that shop also called to confirm that.

I went there a couple of days later and got a new - and slightly better! - phone, more apologies, and the very gratifying sight of the assistant in question sitting there with a really pissed-off expression on his face after he saw me as he had obviously received a severe (and well deserved) bo*****ing for what had happened!!

John

[JeffJS]

FYI, I (the OP) used 2 different programs to check the shutter actuations on what is now all 3 of the camera's (the one sent in, the loaner, and the "replacement") I used myshuttercount.com, and exif tool, and they both came up with the same counts (sent one 3082, replacement 136650 BTW the loaner has only 2000 actuations, but has an issue with it's rear e-dial.

Do you mean 13665? or do you really mean 136650? If the latter, that's an entirely different matter IMO and until seeing that number I don't know how much of an issue I would have with it. It's one thing to get a more used camera and quite another to get one with the shutter count beyond the stated life expectancy. I'm sure it's just a typo though.

[mokey]

Do you mean 13665? or do you really mean 136650? If the latter, that's an entirely different matter IMO and until seeing that number I don't know how much of an issue I would have with it. It's one thing to get a more used camera and quite another to get one with the shutter count beyond the stated life expectancy. I'm sure it's just a typo though.

oops typo...13665