well I guess that showed the D7000 focus issues and the canon 7D £1600 that was a long time ago and he now shoots a Sony A7Rii by the looks of it.
I bet both of those 2 people knew they were buying grey and tried to chance it with a UK service. [cynic]
Yonks ago I saw a programme or some evidence where the camera (I think a Nikon DSLR) was indeed fake. The internals had nothing to do with a Nikon. Unfortunately the BBC followed the lines of the manufacturers' in calling the DSLR camera fakes. Nevertheless, the implication seemed to be that Canon would not touch the "fake" camera whilst it seemed as if Nikon would (at a cost).
That P&S that they claim is a fake with fake software might be in the same category - those things are much more generic than SLRs, so it would be easier to fool people by re-badging a Brand X.Yonks ago I saw a programme or some evidence where the camera (I think a Nikon DSLR) was indeed fake. The internals had nothing to do with a Nikon.
The analogy is flawed, no one makes 'cheap slr's' that you could easily butcher and upsell, but there's lots of cheap Chinese p&s size cameras.If you're going to make a fake product surely it's better to fake something expensive than something cheap.
You wouldn't forge 10p coins when with the same effort you could counterfeit £1 coins.
Maybe it was a decent, genuine Nikon outer casing, but someone had ruined it by sticking Canon internals in there ......
I was thinking more in terms of the "fake" Canon compact that was on the show.The analogy is flawed, no one makes 'cheap slr's' that you could easily butcher and upsell, but there's lots of cheap Chinese p&s size cameras.
Back to your analogy, you'd have to make your own £1 coins (which might cost 50p) whereas you can buy fake 10p's for 2p.
I would have thought it was even easier to change a "software" embedded serial number than the printed one on the product label. It's not so much as knowing where the camera came from, rather the market where it was intended to be sold, which appears to be identifiable from the serial number. If a camera is bought legitimately abroad, surely it can still be serviced in the UK, even if it requires payment?The odd thing is that Nikon dSLRs also have internal serial numbers that are in the metadata of every file shot with that camera, so Nikon will presumably always know where the camera came from originally if they ever get one in for service. So who is the tampering intended to fool? Maybe a cursory check at Customs, who may know the serial number ranges for various markets?
The analogy is flawed, no one makes 'cheap slr's' that you could easily butcher and upsell,
From the article @andyjholt linked above...The odd thing is that Nikon dSLRs also have internal serial numbers that are in the metadata of every file shot with that camera, so Nikon will presumably always know where the camera came from originally if they ever get one in for service. So who is the tampering intended to fool? Maybe a cursory check at Customs, who may know the serial number ranges for various markets?
Yes you have a warranty still - its just the responsibility and legal coverage is with the manufacturer's subsidiary in that country. For example: if its a camera destined for the Hong Kong market you are covered by Nikon in Hong Kong for repairs.I would have thought it was even easier to change a "software" embedded serial number than the printed one on the product label. It's not so much as knowing where the camera came from, rather the market where it was intended to be sold, which appears to be identifiable from the serial number. If a camera is bought legitimately abroad, surely it can still be serviced in the UK, even if it requires payment?
It's all very well to say "The inflated retail price in the UK is to cover warranty and servicing" but items sold abroad are still supplied with warranty, the cost of which is still incorporated in the sale price.
Me neither. I can't see any legitimate reason for that. It would be interesting to see whether anyone here could justify it.From the article @andyjholt linked above...
[The company] told us it wasn’t an authorised Nikon dealer and that it sold grey market cameras. “Our suppliers, who are authorised dealers based in the far east, do change the serial numbers on the cameras for stock purposes,” it says. “But these cameras are genuinely made by the manufacturer stated on the camera.”
I can't understand the explanation or reasoning for altering the serial numbers..
I suspect it's not - previous purchasers have noticed a mismatch between the internal serial number (since some models use the same number internally and externally) and what is printed on the fake label, so the fakers have presumably changed only the label. You can change the number recorded in an individual image file, of course, but I suppose altering the number stored in the camera would involve changing part of the firmware that is normally untouched by updates.I would have thought it was even easier to change a "software" embedded serial number than the printed one on the product label.
Thus rendering all those sensor recall notices entirely redundant?
From the guy whose camera it was' perspective... https://photo.tfindley.co.uk/2016/09/bbc-fake-britain/
Me neither. I can't see any legitimate reason for that. It would be interesting to see whether anyone here could justify it.
I thought the feature was pretty misleading and obviously biased towards discouraging punters from buying grey imports. If you don't already know the deal with these products, here is a more balanced article from the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...eal-deal-imported-sold-unofficially-consumers