[MarkJerling]

Actuating the mirror while having something inside the mirror box may cause that.

I can't see any possible way this could happen during shipping without major damage to the body. I too am among the people who dropped an SLR more than a few times back in my youth (sometimes from decent heights) and asides from scratches and a few dents never saw anything else damaged.

I agree with you 100%. Considering how my K-5 was shipped from the USA to NZ, and no damage at all and my Pentax SFXn that fell a metre onto hard floor (I bumped it off the Kitchen bench) with not so much as a scratch, I can only conclude that something physical struck that mirror. And, if it had the dust cap on as shown, then what could have done that in shipping?

[stevebrot]

There are a number of lenses that when adapted have a protruding shield of aperture lever. I remember reading about one of the older lenses, where someone filed off aperture shield to avoid this kind mirror crack.

On a Pentax camera? I know this is a historic issue with adapted lenses on Canon, but never (adapted or otherwise) of mirror or other damage with an adapted or K-mount lens on 35mm Pentax.


Steve

[rrstuff]

On a Pentax camera? I know this is a historic issue with adapted lenses on Canon, but never (adapted or otherwise) of mirror or other damage with an adapted or K-mount lens on 35mm Pentax.


Steve

Not a k-mount. I think it was an M42. I will try to find this post when I get a chance. I think it was here on PF.

[alfa75ts]

There are a number of lenses that when adapted have a protruding shield of aperture lever. I remember reading about one of the older lenses, where someone filed off aperture shield to avoid this kind mirror crack. I wonder if O.S. could track the user's buying/selling on ebay and see if he purchased such a lens?

You are thinking of lenses made for the Ricoh K (or KR) mount. Later Pentax mirror boxes had a different internal structure which the 'shield' hit and prevented the lens from being mounted.

If you did manage to mount one of these lenses without removing or modifying the 'shield' it might get hit by the mirror but I don't think it would.


I agree that the broken mirror was unlikely to happen shipping. Perhaps the buyer was trying to get the focusing screen?

[gor80]

I am very sorry that you are so upset about this event - ebey rating is an important thing. And unfortunately from cheating no one is safe. I did a lot of shopping there, about 150, and I have 100% positive feedback, and I would be upset too negative reviews.
Alas, everything is relative! do not be sad!

[delphiguru]

THE LATEST EBAY INFO! They have informed me that they have reimbursed the buyer and are now seeking restitution from me - to which I basically said "Go suck eggs!". I won't be on eBay much longer.


I loved eBay in the beginning. Sellers bent over backwards to gain your trust. And, buyers seemed only intent on receiving a fair value for their money. Fair? Certainly! Now, eBay bends over backwards and takes it in the rear from deceitful buyers AND PASSES THE COST ALONG TO THE SELLER, just so they can keep on doing business. Where are the morals, the scruples, the integrity? Is a lie no longer a lie?! Are some lies ignored, if the economics dictate a deviation from the truth? I do not understand such a world and will not willingly participate in it. After I have concluded my current transaction with another (good) seller, I will be terminating my 14-year, 660+ trans, 100 % rating membership.


Thanks again for all your support. I feel that I might have lost a great auction site, but have found a brethren of like-mined and honest Pentax users. I'll be back.
Sam Hunt (eBay user: delphiguru)

[MarkJerling]

THE LATEST EBAY INFO! They have informed me that they have reimbursed the buyer and are now seeking restitution from me - to which I basically said "Go suck eggs!". I won't be on eBay much longer.


I loved eBay in the beginning. Sellers bent over backwards to gain your trust. And, buyers seemed only intent on receiving a fair value for their money. Fair? Certainly! Now, eBay bends over backwards and takes it in the rear from deceitful buyers AND PASSES THE COST ALONG TO THE SELLER, just so they can keep on doing business. Where are the morals, the scruples, the integrity? Is a lie no longer a lie?! Are some lies ignored, if the economics dictate a deviation from the truth? I do not understand such a world and will not willingly participate in it. After I have concluded my current transaction with another (good) seller, I will be terminating my 14-year, 660+ trans, 100 % rating membership.


Thanks again for all your support. I feel that I might have lost a great auction site, but have found a brethren of like-mined and honest Pentax users. I'll be back.
Sam Hunt (eBay user: delphiguru)

Sam, don't give up so easily. Insist the seller returns the item. (At their cost)

[stillshot2]

Ebay refunded the seller before they even returned the camera??!! I would think they would have to show proof of returning it with tracking before ebay would refund them. My gut is that they either did something stupid and damaged the camera and now want a refund or they have the same model of camera that is broken and are trying to swap with yours. Very dishonest I agree. Plus the fees from selling on ebay are getting pretty ridiculous these days.

[csa]

Sam, don't give up so easily. Insist the seller returns the item. (At their cost)

Agreed! Hopefully the OP has the serial # of the body sent; it might be very interesting to see if the damaged one is indeed the original one sent to the buyer!

Whenever I sell something with a serial #, I jot it down, and also take many photos of the packing of the item, with each step.

Curious about that "damage". I received my K10D body without the body cap! Yet, absolutely no damage! The body was double wrapped in strong plastic bags, & packed well in a separate box, inside the shipping box; and despite one whole end of the shipping box being completely caved in, absolutely no damage to the camera! So I really question, with the cap on, that this "damage" occured during shipping.

If a box received has damage, I also take photos of it, before opening, and while opening; in case of damage to product.

[stevebrot]

You are thinking of lenses made for the Ricoh K (or KR) mount. Later Pentax mirror boxes had a different internal structure which the 'shield' hit and prevented the lens from being mounted.

If you did manage to mount one of these lenses without removing or modifying the 'shield' it might get hit by the mirror but I don't think it would.

Hmmm...there are a number of non-Pentax K-mount zoom lenses that have a prominent aperture actuator guard that makes it impossible to mount those lenses on an APS-C Pentax camera (the mirror box is too shallow at bottom center). Some of those lenses may be Rikenon (Ricoh), but none of them will break a mirror, particularly not on a K-mount film camera. (The guard and aperture lever are outside the mirror box proper at all points during mounting and use for all K-mount cameras.)

As for KR mount lenses, the issue is with the Rikenon-P "pin" which was originally intended to allow program exposure automation on certain Ricoh cameras. This pin is on the mount face of the lens and may drop into the AF screw drive well resulting in the lens being stuck on the camera. This is a serious issue, but does not affect any manual focus K-mount camera and definitely will not break a mirror.


Steve

[MarkJerling]

Agreed! Hopefully the OP has the serial # of the body sent; it might be very interesting to see if the damaged one is indeed the original one sent to the buyer!

Whenever I sell something with a serial #, I jot it down, and also take many photos of the packing of the item, with each step.

Curious about that "damage". I received my K10D body without the body cap! Yet, absolutely no damage! The body was double wrapped in strong plastic bags, & packed well in a separate box, inside the shipping box; and despite one whole end of the shipping box being completely caved in, absolutely no damage to the camera! So I really question, with the cap on, that this "damage" occured during shipping.

I agree with you 100%