Anyone who runs ads on his website will probably be very happy to learn that the banners on his/her site will be replaced by Charter, thus gouging him/her of any potential revenue.

I smell a lawsuit.

@PEACEFLAG2007

It is forbidden to take pictures or use a video camera in train/metro stations as well as in trains themselves without proper authorization (quite difficult to get). It was already the case back 15 years ago when I was a film student in Paris. Furthermore, you need an authorization to use a tripod in the street (you must ask for clearance with the local police station and are only allowed to do so in the locations you've included in your application). Also, when shooting a movie (even a student's short) you're not allowed to film any official building (ministries, senate, congress, etc.). Don't even try to pop a pocket camera anywhere near the Elysée presidential palace unless you enjoy fighting off an army of armed cops.

Now, don't ask me why or if it makes any sense, that's the way it's been there for at least 40 years.

The RIAA is proof that cocaine is bad for you.

I guess it's a little late to say "thank you", but I mean it anyway.

Thank you.

I just hope it'll take less time to make than Star-Wreck, which was freakin' awesome but took over 7 years!

Perrrrrkele!

@Anti
Amen to your #52 reply. Jason accepted the camera in its shipping condition, which he perhaps should have returned on the spot in case he had doubts regarding the camera's condition. Not having seen a picture of the box, I can't tell what course of action he should have adopted on that particular point. Anyway, the camera is under warranty and being a pro camera (top of the line Nikon), those are pretty sturdy (they're built like tanks, really), actually a lot more resistant to shocks than you may imagine, so I wouldn't think (nor hope) that the camera will fail because of that packaging mishap.

@DCULBERSON
I'm not jumping to the defense of anybody, I'm just saying we don't have enough elements to determine if Cameta's action were truly malicious or if it was a one time fuckup due to incompetence, as there seems to be good faith argument on both sides. BTW, what makes you think the company isn't worth defending? Just because it's a business they should automatically be labeled as "guilty"? I hope for you that you don't get treated that way the day you screw up, ever.

I'm interested to know what happens next, if there's any follow-up to this. Anyhow, as a photographer, I seldom resort to buying expensive camera bodies from cheap outlets. I'd rather pay a little more to a real shop, it's always so much better in case of a problem, rather than having to ship your camera to a service centre. Yeah, good service actually costs money... amazing, eh?

@Jason

Forgive me for not seeing evil, but it seems to me they clearly explain their reasons for doing so in their email.

"After looking into the said situation, we are not sure who you spoke to. However, we are looking into the situation as customer service is our number one priority here at Cameta Camera. In addition, we are also going to be speaking to the shipping manager in regards to how the unit was packaged and shipped. We also have the following option to offer you as a remedy.

We are ready to issue you a credit for $75.00 back to your Amazon account (which is the original freight paid). Our’ only concern is that in the past we have made an accommodation for a customer but they have left us negative feedback anyway. If you would be willing to remove your negative feedback remark to our account (and then email me to let me know that it has been done) I will issue the credit right away. We pride ourselves on good customer service and we are willing to work with you."

Since the present business model of online sales relies a lot on customer reviews, I find their request understandable and not unreasonable. Perhaps their wording is a bit dry in respect to the sum you have paid, but it is nevertheless acceptable in my view. Once again, I think you have over-reacted on this issue by attributing it to malice when incompetence (on their part) explains it.

In my opinion, if you want first class treatment for buying a $5K pro camera, you gotta (and should) be ready to pay a little extra by getting it from a store in which you'll get the respect and service you expect (and deserve), not from a discount outlet. I guess you got what you paid for.

That said, I hope you're satisfied with your camera, it's a nice toy ;)

Jason, may I ask you a question? Had they offered the shipping fees refund immediately when you called, would you have written the negative review anyway? Or would you have just put it as "packaging was sloppy but they made it right"? There's a big difference.

The way I see it, there was somebody not doing a great job on their end, who didn't write down your complaint. Only upon reading your review did they realize what had happened and then offered a refund and an apology. They screwed up and are trying to make it right for everybody, isn't that allowed?

In my opinion, they're only trying to get a review reflecting the WHOLE transaction, not just one that ommits their effort in satisfying you.

Had they wanted to actually bribe you for a glowing review, don't you think they would have proceeded by offering the refund immediately upon clicking "buy", like a "get $75 off by writing a good review"?

I don't hold stock in them (in case you're wondering), I just find it odd a such a company, which has been selling online for years and relying on reviews (they also have an eBay shop) would engage in such practices at the risk of having their reputation tarnished, which goes a long way on the intarweb. As I said, I've bought a couple of things from them (lenses) and always had great service, even though I was in Europe and couldn't do much against them in case of a problem, which a malevolent seller would have most likely taken advantage of.

@CPT TIM
Its amazing what conclusions you can reach if you precede any jump of logic with "It can be assumed"

I'm not saying he's an raving lunatic, just that he has an attitude, which is quite evident upon reading his blog.

Whining about a few wrinkles on a box (which he describes as "looked like a cow had sat on it", pretty extreme don't you tink?) AND getting a complete shipping refund is a pretty good deal, I don't see why or what he's complaining about, really.

Customer places order and gets goods, albeit in wrinkled package. Good are all in perfect condition in their PROTECTIVE PACKAGING. Customer rants about it and gets money back. Customer still unhappy...why?

@Antinuous

Allow me to disagree here. First of all, given the tone of the plaintiff it can be assumed he wasn't exactly courteous upon formulating his complaint about the packaging. Even if Cameta's employee was rude (which has yet to be proven), they are offering to *fix* their mistake to make it right, no matter what.

Most companies wouldn't even consider doing this given the goods, after all, arrived in good working condition (which is the case), so I think writing a negative review for what essentially is about some wrinkled corners on a cardboard box is overkill. In the end, the guy got his camera for a discount AND didn't have to pay for the shipping. What more does he want, FFS?

Given the situation, I think the company is offering a fair deal here, not a bribe. If the guy wanted to be sure he had a spotless box, he should have bought it from a real store, period.

@Yannish
Whilst I agree most of Brooklyn's camera outlets are really bad, I couldn't find Cameta in your list. Also, B&H is in your list but they are one of the most respected companies in the camera business. What's your point?

I have bought from this company in the past and always had very courteous and prompt service. That said, I think calling it bribing is exaggerated. I mean, they admit having screwed up at some point with the customer but are offering to fix their mistake. In good faith, the customer shouldn't bash them with a negative review since the company is offering to fix whatever he's complaining for, right?

Given how a single negative review can obliterate thousands of positive reviews, I understand Cameta's position here.

If his $5K camera had been damaged during shipping, I believe the company would have offered an equally satisfying solution - those are the risks when buying fragile technology online rather than in a real shop (which would compensate its pricing with human tech support, especially with a pro camera).

Ths gy s whnr, nthng ls.

@Takuan

This is just too bizarre for me to process right now.

The event was really nice and I'm really happy to have finally met Cory in person after missing him in Geneva and at another meeting at Bakka's!

Little Brother is awesome, had to read 100 pages from the moment I first opened it last night. Boy I'm tired (but happy) today!

Sarkozy is the French president, not PM. Unfortunately...