Returning a camera Q?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I recently bought a Sony digital camera as a second to my other camera as I was taking a trip to New York City and didn't want to be burdened by the heavier one all the time.

However upon my return I find that the quality is absolutely deplorable, of over a hundred photos taken less than ten are good enough for emailing to friends or having printed.

I don't feel the camera is faulty, just very bad quality so do I have grounds for returning it and asking for a cash refund?.

Paulw

Mairt wrote: »

I don't feel the camera is faulty, just very bad quality so do I have grounds for returning it and asking for a cash refund?.

In this case, I'd have to say no. If the camera is not faulty then there is nothing they can do.

Did you check out the camera before buying?

The camera is now used, and not faulty, so I can't see grounds for returning it.

squibs

I don't know - any old 2 or 3 megapixel camera should take excellent pictures. Anything on sale today would be 6 megapixels and up and an order of magnitude better.

Define "deplorable". Maybe you could scale down a bad one and post it here?

Could it be that the camera software settings were played with and you are using odd aperture/exposure/lighting/other settings?

If not I would say it is a faulty camera.

mathias

Anything on sale today would be 6 megapixels and up and an order of magnitude better.

A very common misconception , the truth is though , that the more pixels crammed into the tiny sensors of point and shoots , the worse they get , and some of the latest are truly brutal in terms of image quality , especially when taking pictures of friends in bars.

squibs

Quote:
Anything on sale today would be 6 megapixels and up and an order of magnitude better.
A very common misconception , the truth is though , that the more pixels crammed into the tiny sensors of point and shoots , the worse they get , and some of the latest are truly brutal in terms of image quality , especially when taking pictures of friends in bars.

I'm far from an expert, but to my eyes, what I've seen of the current crop are producing better images than the older 2-3mp cameras. I also thought my old budget camera was a piece of junk, as point and click was hit and miss depending on the lighting. Once I spent a bit of time making basic adjustments for the prevailing conditions, I started getting the results I wanted.

mickoneill30

Mairt wrote: »

I recently bought a Sony digital camera as a second to my other camera as I was taking a trip to New York City and didn't want to be burdened by the heavier one all the time.

However upon my return I find that the quality is absolutely deplorable, of over a hundred photos taken less than ten are good enough for emailing to friends or having printed.

I don't feel the camera is faulty, just very bad quality so do I have grounds for returning it and asking for a cash refund?.

The camera may be faulty. But I'd say you may have kept it too long for a refund.

"If you keep a faulty item for a long time, you may be considered to have accepted the item in that state." from
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/consumer-protection/consumer-complaints/how_to_make_a_consumer_complaint

I'm no expert but I'd presume that any current camera should be capable of taking decent pictures. Not professional quality but good enough for home albums. If they can't do that I'd be bringing it back.

Paulw

squibs wrote: »

I'm far from an expert, but to my eyes, what I've seen of the current crop are producing better images than the older 2-3mp cameras.

That's more to do with everything else in the camera than the mp count. It's to do with the lens, the software in the camera and bits like that.

Higher mp won't give you a better image, per se.

It also has a lot to do with how you take the photo.

Most of those older large billboard poster shots were taken with 4mp digital cameras.

jor el

If the camera takes crappy pictures, then it's not fit for the purpose it was bought for. As such, you should be able to return it. It would have to have been bought within the last few weeks, a month at most, to expect a refund.

You should also check to make sure you didn't have the wrong settings for the pictures that were bad. Perhaps flash, picture size, exposure settings etc can be changed. Check these first, take some more pictures and see the results.

Cunning Alias

Best bet would be to bring it to the store and compare it to one they have there (probably a display model) if there is a difference then the camera is faulty and you can get a refund (or replacement if it has been too long). Worse case they send it off for repair and you are without it for about 2-3 weeks.

I used to work in customer service and this is what I would do to test cameras.

Doctor DooM

Have you still got the reciept? I had a crappy little 2 mp camera but it produced shots fine.

If there's nothing wrong your simply not entitled to a refund- but if the goods are not fit for purpose, you are entitled to some kind of resolution within 1 year.

craichoe

jor el wrote: »

If the camera takes crappy pictures, then it's not fit for the purpose it was bought for. As such, you should be able to return it. It would have to have been bought within the last few weeks, a month at most, to expect a refund.

You should also check to make sure you didn't have the wrong settings for the pictures that were bad. Perhaps flash, picture size, exposure settings etc can be changed. Check these first, take some more pictures and see the results.

Thats wrong .. you'd have to have a definition of crappy first. Compare like for like.