Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2010, 07:01 PM   #31
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,785
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy97 Quote
For the record I did not return any of the cameras due to the crooked button. It's just indicative of sloppy quality control.
Nope. Got nothing to do with QC. They have a certain tolerance for the angle of the arrow direction. The fact it is wider than your acceptable arrow-angle deviation is unfortunate, however.

07-22-2010, 11:13 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
You are accusing the OP based purely on your vivid imagination. Just ridiculous.
But returning a brand new, perfect camera that works in every way because there's a single stuck pixel on an LCD display that won't cause any adverse effect to image quality, and is only the tiniest imaginable cosmetic flaw... well, that's not ridiculous at all.

Nor is it ridiculous to return a camera because the viewfinder point illumination is slightly uneven, or because of that issue and a few specks of dust that are in a user-accessible, user-cleanable area of the viewfinder. Again, all issues with no effect on image quality, and only a very minor cosmetic effect.

These are completely rational decisions, obviously.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
There is a sample size of 4. 3 K-7's he purchased, a K10 for previous model comparison, and the one at B&H. He's shopping the brand. That's just being a good consumer on a big ticket item.
No, there's a sample size of three. He never mentions the first camera's viewfinder, so we don't know if it was bright or if it was just like two of the other three. It hence can't be included in the sample.

Nor can we include the K10 as a point of comparison. It's a different camera model, with a different viewfinder assembly, and quite possibly a different AF point display mechanism. That's basically the same thing as saying we can include "a Canon Rebel for other brand comparison" -- the comparison is completely invalid if the hardware isn't identical.

QuoteQuote:
Dim AF points are a significant defect if the models he received are less functional than ones sitting at B&H. They prevent full use of the product as intended and as others use the same product of the same assembly line. Would you like it if your headlamps were 50% less dim on your new car compared to the one sitting in the showroom?
Headlamps are a lousy parallel. A more accurate one would be an indicator LED on the airconditioner control. Being a bit dim or uneven has absolutely no effect on actual use -- it's entirely cosmetic.

As I've repeatedly stated, I should know. My camera is exactly the same. It's uneven, and among the least bright of any camera I've used (which is a lot). For reference, the brightest is a Canon 1D Mark IV, when set to increase the LED brightness -- that's bright enough to almost leave a lasting image on my retina.

But guess what? In almost a year of use, and many, many thousands of shots, I've never once hit a situation where the viewfinder points being slightly dim prevented me knowing which point was automatically selected, or which point I was manually selecting. That's because it is a cosmectic flaw -- it doesn't affect actual operation in the least.

QuoteQuote:
The laws are not pointless. He had 2 accepted returns and a policy from Amazon to allow them. Those are contracts. The prior returns are an indication of reseller liability. They accepted defect and fault.
Complete and utter nonsense.

a) They have no choice but to accept the return even if the item is in perfect working order, because they don't have the item in their hands to determine whether the customer complaint is valid. Accepting a return is not an "indication of reseller liability", it is merely an indication that they tried to do the right thing.

b) Having accepted back three items in perfect working order with solely cosmetic flaws (and I think anybody rational would agree that one single stuck pixel on a display is as small a defect as one could imagine), what logic is there in forcing the retailer to send yet another product to be returned for ridiculous reasons, rather than refunding the entire cost and telling the buyer to go elsewhere? None.

And sorry, but I don't actually believe these "laws" exist yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they did in some places, but we've had no citation to show they're anything other than a figment of somebody's imagination yet.

QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Nope. Got nothing to do with QC. They have a certain tolerance for the angle of the arrow direction. The fact it is wider than your acceptable arrow-angle deviation is unfortunate, however.
...or simply, as somebody else pointed out, that the button can be rotated. I haven't checked my own camera to see, because frankly I don't care. It's obsessive to the point of childishness to complain about a product because a button's non-text screen-printing is rotated differently on two different cameras.
07-22-2010, 12:35 PM   #33
Unregistered
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
Bla bla, bla bla bla.
I am beginning to think you are just bitter. Why? You're stuck with a defective K-7. The dim AF point issue is a functional defect. Plain and simple. No other way around it. I feel zero remorse for sending those last two cameras back.

I suspect the first camera I got from Amazon did not have the AF point defect. I noticed it immediately with the second one. And I certainly wasn't looking for it at the time.

Build the damn thing right the first time and it won't get sent back.

Last edited by krebsy75; 07-25-2010 at 12:38 PM.
07-22-2010, 01:27 PM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,493
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy97 Quote
Build the damn thing right the first time and it won't get sent back.
There is not a manufacturer on this planet that attempts to manufacture 100% defect-free products. They are all capable of doing so, but they don't try, because the cost of achieving defect-free products is prohibitive. It is more cost effective to have a system in place whereby a certain percentage of bad units are produced, and a certain percentage of those bad units slip through QC. That's a manufacturing reality.

Accept the fact that you screwed up returning the first unit solely because it had a single dead pixel on the lcd screen and had bad luck subsequently with minor issues having little or nothing to do with image quality or functionality.

Bad luck happens.

07-22-2010, 06:54 PM   #35
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,860
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote

Complete and utter nonsense.

a) They have no choice but to accept the return even if the item is in perfect working order, because they don't have the item in their hands to determine whether the customer complaint is valid. Accepting a return is not an "indication of reseller liability", it is merely an indication that they tried to do the right thing.

b) Having accepted back three items in perfect working order with solely cosmetic flaws (and I think anybody rational would agree that one single stuck pixel on a display is as small a defect as one could imagine), what logic is there in forcing the retailer to send yet another product to be returned for ridiculous reasons, rather than refunding the entire cost and telling the buyer to go elsewhere? None.

And sorry, but I don't actually believe these "laws" exist yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they did in some places, but we've had no citation to show they're anything other than a figment of somebody's imagination yet.
You have an interpretation of "cosmetic". Guess what? That's a common law derivation. Meaning, unless the standard is posted (e.g. 1 pixel), then the costumer can make their case.

Your interpretation of cosmetic is not universal. Laws and contracts are written precisely to cut through the nonsense from self-appointed people like yourself trying do dictate how other people should accept products. He found a fault, they accepted his rationale for return. Therefore, de facto, they accepted the fault.

The acceptance of a return is an acceptance of the customer's interpretation of the contract. Period. There is no "do the right thing". Their policy is to accept returns with no adjudication. It's a contract, agnostic of morality. You need a lesson in contract law.

In the US there is the Fair Credit Act, and similar legislation in other jurisdictions to protect a consumer's right to fair commerce under standardized contracts minimums. The EU has something called the Unfair Commercial Practises, most Canadian Provinces have a Fair Trading Act, and most US States have similar. All States and Provinces have "refund laws' which must be posted in clear language. If they not not adhere to those terms, they can have administrative action taken against them, including having licenses pulled or legal action. New York State alone must file 200 lawsuits on issues like this a year. If there is no term stating a certain # of refunds gives us the right to exclude you from commerce, then for them to single out an individual is discriminatory and will likely be addressed upon complaint. If a biz has a "no shirt, no service" rue, then it has to be posted in advance of an expectation of a fair commercial transaction.

Also warranty law is even stricter as many of these include risk transfer scenarios and are therefore insurance mechanisms. Most refund laws give businesses opportunity to refund, repair, or replace under warranty. The US Uniform Code has a statutory manufacturer's warranty. Not honouring a warranty defect (again, unless the policy specifically excludes the defect, it's not subjective) can get classified (jurisdiction depending) as a breach of insurance contract. That's nasty. Most resellers simply accept consumer returns to avoid warranty redress because that's when the bookkeeping and strict contract adherence start.

I have a job title and background that puts me in the thick of it.
07-23-2010, 07:28 AM   #36
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,109
I have avoided Nikon since I had real bad problems with a film camera in the 90's. I know Nikon has many loyal users that would say my experience was a fluke but it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth for Nikon and I don't have much confidence in their products to purchase another one yet. My issue with the camera was the motor drive/film advance jamming. They said there was no problem with the camera and that I had devective film cartridges. No warranty. I eventually took a hammer to that camera body and now use the lenses as door stops. The QC issue is across the board with every manufacturer. If your experience with a product is good, you're a happy returning customer. If it's bad, you move on.
07-23-2010, 09:14 AM - 1 Like   #37
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,109
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy97 Quote


Build the damn thing right the first time and it won't get sent back. My K10D was. As well as my friend's K-x.


As has been every Pentax body I've bought over the past 25 years.
Consumers are no longer willing to pay for quality control. They have shown, time and again, that what motivates them is the cheapest price.
You indicated that you are one of those consumers in a prior post.
There is usually one or more thread going on where someone is moaning about how much this stuff costs, and how they've been betrayed because Pentax is no longer the cheap camera maker that they have been in the past, with lenses practically growing on trees.
Would you be willing to pay 25% more for a camera that was guaranteed perfect out of the box?
I would, but I suspect most would move to a different manufacturer that gave a similar feature set for 25% less coin.
Consumers, in their ongoing war with manufacturers have brought QC issues onto themselves.
Now, whether we value well built equipment or not, we are stuck with QC issues because of people who will shop a different brand for a few pennies less.
Like it or not, consumers themselves have made buying gear into a game of Roulette, and then added to the problem by refusing to support brick and mortar stores (for the same reason, it costs a bit more to buy local).
Live with the new reality, braying on forums isn't about to change anything. The new paradigm is exactly what you are suffering, and you've brought it onto yourself with your own buying habits.
07-23-2010, 04:49 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy97 Quote
I am beginning to think you are just bitter. Why? You're stuck with a defective K-7. The dim AF point issue is a functional defect. Plain and simple. No other way around it. I feel zero remorse for sending those last two cameras back.
Rubbish. I have a three year warranty, included free of charge by Pentax with the purchase of the camera itself. I still have more than two years of that warranty remaining. If the issue bothered me in the least (it doesn't), or if it had the slightest impact to the operation of the camera and my ability to see the selected AF points in any conditions (it doesn't), I'd return it under warranty for inspection and -- if there was actually a problem -- repair at Pentax's cost.

The fact is, it's solely a cosmetic issue, that has absolutely no effect in real-world use.

QuoteQuote:
I suspect the first camera I got from Amazon did not have the AF point defect. I noticed it immediately with the second one. And I certainly wasn't looking for it at the time.
Just like you weren't looking for dust. And you weren't looking for a stuck pixel. And you weren't looking for a button that didn't point in precisely the right direction. They're just such collossal showstoppers that you couldn't have missed them in a million years.

QuoteQuote:
Build the damn thing right the first time and it won't get sent back. My K10D was. As well as my friend's K-x.
I've shot extensively with both cameras. The K-x isn't in the same class as the K-7 in terms of build quality (and nor would I expect it to be, given the price difference).

QuoteQuote:
And for God's sake... The stupid crooked flash button was not a deal breaker. All I know is, if I was some Vietnamese dude putting these things together, I'd put the damn button on the camera in the same direction, every time.
It's a button that most likely can rotate in use. (If there was a mechanism to stop it rotating, it likely wouldn't be possible to insert the wrong way up.) There's every chance it was the same way up when both cameras were made, and rotated while they were being handled since.

That said though, *you* brought it up as an example of supposedly inadequate build quality. If you didn't want it discussed, you shouldn't have brought it up.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I have a job title and background that puts me in the thick of it.
You're arguing a point that wasn't the one made (and either you've misunderstood from the start, or you are avoiding backing up your earlier assertion that it was illegal for a retailer to simply refund a customer and refuse to provide a replacement product, after receiving multiple returns of products that had nothing but extremely minor cosmetic issues).

I never said they shouldn't accept the return. I said that after accepting the return, they shouldn't (and couldn't) be forced to continue to send new product after new product for the rest of eternity, with every one being rejected for petty cosmetic reasons.

All they were required to do was to accept the return, refund his money, and cancel his order. They went above and beyond the call of duty by sending multiple items and accepting returns when the products -- by his own admission, in at least one instance -- weren't really faulty at all. (One dot on a 920,000 dot LCD being faulty is equivalent to a 99.999999% perfect product -- a parallel would be to claim you could return your camera because the specifications said it shot at 5.2 frames per second, but it actually only managed 5.199994 frames per second.) If -- as certain manufacturers do with premium LCD monitors -- they'd guaranteed no stuck pixels, then you'd have a case for the return. There's no such guarantee for LCD displays on digital cameras from Pentax, or any other digital camera manufacturer that I'm aware of.

07-23-2010, 06:04 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,860
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
Rubbish. I have a three year warranty, included free of charge by Pentax with the purchase of the camera itself. I still have more than two years of that warranty remaining. If the issue bothered me in the least (it doesn't), or if it had the slightest impact to the operation of the camera and my ability to see the selected AF points in any conditions (it doesn't), I'd return it under warranty for inspection and -- if there was actually a problem -- repair at Pentax's cost.

The fact is, it's solely a cosmetic issue, that has absolutely no effect in real-world use.



Just like you weren't looking for dust. And you weren't looking for a stuck pixel. And you weren't looking for a button that didn't point in precisely the right direction. They're just such collossal showstoppers that you couldn't have missed them in a million years.



I've shot extensively with both cameras. The K-x isn't in the same class as the K-7 in terms of build quality (and nor would I expect it to be, given the price difference).



It's a button that most likely can rotate in use. (If there was a mechanism to stop it rotating, it likely wouldn't be possible to insert the wrong way up.) There's every chance it was the same way up when both cameras were made, and rotated while they were being handled since.

That said though, *you* brought it up as an example of supposedly inadequate build quality. If you didn't want it discussed, you shouldn't have brought it up.



You're arguing a point that wasn't the one made (and either you've misunderstood from the start, or you are avoiding backing up your earlier assertion that it was illegal for a retailer to simply refund a customer and refuse to provide a replacement product, after receiving multiple returns of products that had nothing but extremely minor cosmetic issues).

I never said they shouldn't accept the return. I said that after accepting the return, they shouldn't (and couldn't) be forced to continue to send new product after new product for the rest of eternity, with every one being rejected for petty cosmetic reasons.

All they were required to do was to accept the return, refund his money, and cancel his order. They went above and beyond the call of duty by sending multiple items and accepting returns when the products -- by his own admission, in at least one instance -- weren't really faulty at all. (One dot on a 920,000 dot LCD being faulty is equivalent to a 99.999999% perfect product -- a parallel would be to claim you could return your camera because the specifications said it shot at 5.2 frames per second, but it actually only managed 5.199994 frames per second.) If -- as certain manufacturers do with premium LCD monitors -- they'd guaranteed no stuck pixels, then you'd have a case for the return. There's no such guarantee for LCD displays on digital cameras from Pentax, or any other digital camera manufacturer that I'm aware of.
You really don't know what you are talking about, especially your moral indignation by remotely judging someone else's defect as "cosmetic". Show me that term in the warranty or return policy. If it is not there, it does not exist, save in your mind. You keep inserting this into the discussion when it is simply not there in law.

If there was a prophylactic measure to prevent refunds or returns it also needs to be stated. That's what universal refund laws are all about. They are there to precisely prevent retailers from arbitrarily choosing who they serve and who gets a refund after poor service. There are numerous reasons for this including redlining (look it up), ethnic or racial discrimination, built-in obsolescence, reverse engineering, etc. The rules and laws of commerce are there to create a level playing field and balanced market. Absent a prophylactic term in the contract, the reseller, by accepting the return, has kept their policy very open-ended for reasons of keeping customers happy. That's their business innovation and competitive advantage. What catches the eyes of authorities is if they retroactively use a non-posted, reactive policy to deny commerce.

Therefore unless there is lawful basis to deny service, denying a consumer commerce is not only poor business practise often leading to bad publicity, in many jurisdictions it's going to get you a visit from a registrar, and if it is a warranty issue and the complaint goes far enough, a risk management summary for refusal to honour an insurance policy (which can severely affect a business's credit rating). It gets worse if there is a court claim and so on.

In this case, the law is clear. Unless there is a stated policy that x # of returns can deny future service, and that there are reasonable grounds to verify that the returns did not meet a "cosmetic" standard which is a posted standard, then the consumer denied service is being blacklisted, which can lead to legal and administrative Government action against said businesses. If a biz wants to go down that road, they need to post that in their return policies beforehand. Some do. Most do not.

And you just gave evidence of that yourself. The LCD "no dead pixel" policy. Clearly someone in a major manufacturing industry accepts that a single dead pixel is an unacceptable tolerance and have made provision for it proactively in contract. They are just catching up to where the consumer's mind already is.
07-23-2010, 06:14 PM   #40
Veteran Member
kalison's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 376
The companies that do that zero dead/bright pixel policy only applies to the highest standard LCDs. You will spend at the very least 1700 dollars on one with that policy and it's touted as being extremely color accurate.

On normal consumer screens the policies are much more strict. There needs to be a certain amount of pixels dead or stuck, and or grouped in a location "they" deem detrimental to the use of the monitor. These are the more common return restrictions of the 100-500 dollar monitors.

Sorry for off topic. My first K7 had extremely dim confirmation points. I used it for a week with no issues, still I felt it wasn't quite right. I returned mine and got one with much brighter AF points. However my dim ones did not make my photos worse than the one with brighter AF points.
07-23-2010, 06:24 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You really don't know what you are talking about, especially your moral indignation by remotely judging someone else's defect as "cosmetic".
And you clearly have no intention of providing any reference or citation to backup your assertion that (exact quote):

"Blacklisting consumers for returns is against the law in most states and provinces."

Since you can't (or won't) provide any citation, I will presume that you made it up. That being the case, I really can't be bothered to continue the conversation, and will ignore your further posts in this thread.
07-23-2010, 07:48 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,860
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Consumers are no longer willing to pay for quality control. They have shown, time and again, that what motivates them is the cheapest price.
That explains the housing meltdown? C'mon. People overpay all the time for various reasons, not the least of which is neighbourly envy, unrealistic expectations from enlarging medications, farting iPhone apps, and, not the least, LBA.

The one thing I have learned as a market analyst is that the market for price is inversely proportional to the expectations of economists that insist that price is the major determining factor. It is not. People are as irrational about price as economists are rational about it.
07-23-2010, 08:16 PM   #43
Pentaxian
jeffshaddix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,371
It took me three times as well to find a charm. First had overheating and stuck LCD pixels, second had hot pixels all over the sensor, the third I'm keeping, but I've already had to adjust the autofocus by -3 on all lenses and have seen banding at high ISO.

I agree with the OP, the QC seems terrible for this camera.

Now that I've got one without anything too aggravating, I'm loving it!
07-23-2010, 10:34 PM   #44
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
The Pentax K-7 is not exactly a cheap camera. If I was going to pay anywhere from $700-1000 for a camera you bet I'd be checking it out thoroughly and returning it if need be if it had any flaws, even small ones.

One bad pixel spot may not seem like such a big deal, but pixel problems can grow and spread over time as anyone with a bad laptop screen can tell you. It might not, and it may never be an issue, but why take the chance with a camera that's cost you that kind of money? The flash button thing, no big deal, but again they really should not sell cameras with visible flaws like that not at a price point like that.

Would you buy a brand new car that has scratches or defects that are visible? Mechanical issues that may or may not affect use of that car over time? I think not. So why should it be any different when you're talking about a pricey DSLR?

You're not exactly talking about $40 pocket digi-cam here.

For me, if I am going to save up for a long time to get the best camera I can see myself being able to afford the LAST thing I want to have to do is return it!

Unfortunately I can't buy Pentax cameras locally. They don't have anyone who retails Pentax cameras here. The closest store is a long car or plane ride away from here from what I can tell. When I get to the point where I have the money saved for mine I will have to buy online or take a trip to buy in person.

Honestly I was planning on buying mine online, but after reading this thread I'm thinking that maybe when the time comes I will take a vacation up to see some relatives and buy mine in person. I'm just not sure I'd quite trust buying one online after reading this.

I definitely don't want my camera to be in that 5%.
07-23-2010, 10:38 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frozen white North
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
I have a bad pixel on my K10D (on the LCD) but I feel that the build quality overall is better than the K-7.

If my AF points were unevenly illuminated, I might be a bit annoyed with it. My guess is that the build spec for the camera doesn't include "ensure AF points are configured such that they illuminate with different brightness." Therefore, if they don't light up evenly it is probably a defect that can interfere with the enjoyment of the product.

Also, if they can't get the lights right, you wonder what else might be a bit off...

Someone above used the analogy that if the LEDs behind the buttons for their air conditioner weren't illuminated evenly it is only a cosmetic defect. If I bought my car because I enjoy driving and I had to look at an unevenly lit dash, that would reduce the enjoyment I got from it. Why should I have to put up with something that annoys me every time I look at it if it isn't supposed to be that way by design?

I never even thought about Pentax when I was shopping for my first DSLR. I was looking at a Canon XT. I picked up the K10D in the store when I saw it and the quality was night and day. Clearly I got the K10D.

Ok, the flash button. If the little lightning bolt was crooked, it still looks like a lightning bolt. If it was rotated 45 degrees it could even look like it was designed that way. After all, who is to say that a lightning bolt icon has to be straight up and down? Now, if the "OK" or "AF" buttons were crooked by 45 degrees, is that normal? What if it was upside down? It doesn't affect the operation of the camera at all, you can still read it, but is it supposed to be that way? No.

Taking it a step further - if the plastic doors over the SD card and USB connectors fell off due to poor QC, would you complain? They don't affect the image quality or operation of the camera in any way (at least not on a non WR body).

I think the OP was over-reacting about the dead pixel on the LCD. But to fault him for complaining about other aspects of the camera that are not operating as they were originally designed is not OK.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
button, camera, cameras, dslr, focus, issue, k-7, k10d, pentax, photography, picture, quality
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camera and Lens Quality Control? benjikan General Talk 33 03-26-2010 06:39 PM
16-50mm DA* Quality Control in August 2009? xuagirt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 08-17-2009 10:49 PM
How's Sigma's quality control lately? kristoffon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 02-05-2009 10:00 AM
af360-FGZ Quality control mambosabi Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 04-14-2008 04:10 PM
K10 quality control issues? slip Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 02-08-2007 03:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top