I think she's been conned

This sort of thing happens every day in every sales environment, the sales people are there to make the shop money the customer is there to buy said item/items.

If she did not have £1500 to spend on a camera she would not have simple as that.
 
But there's loads going on here and I'm a little disheartened with the Daily Fail attitude.

How different would this have been:

Didn't know where to put this so stuck to basics. I friend and I got talking at work and she explained that she was into photography and we had a little chat about her love for landscapes. I asked what camera she had and she explained she was just started out and was going to buy one very soon, she was using a point and shoot not dslr st the moment.

She came back a few days later all excited and told me she had her first proper camera which the helpful camera shop had advised her to get - a camera that cost her £1500.

It was a bit more than she wanted to spend but the helpful man listened to what she wanted and explained that if she really wanted to improve on her 'holiday snaps' she ought to be looking at spending over £1000 and he cut her a good deal on the package. I know it's more about the photographer than the camera so I've arranged to go out with her to show her how to get the best from her equipment. I'm sure she'll soon get the hang of it and she'll benefit from not having to upgrade too soon!(y)

It's the same story as the OP - one of the versions written by someone who's a bit jealous that his mate's a complete novice and just got a cracking new camera, the other written by a genuinely helpful mate.

Now there may be no jealousy or actual bitterness, but there's certainly no joy in the friends new hobby either.;)

It might just be that I'm a glass half full kind of bloke:)
 
Adgree with you Phil V,maybe the OP was a little bit jealous of the camera she got ?,he hasn't come back on the thread to fill us in anymore on the camera she brought :)
 
Hi everyone, sorry about the absence due to working long hours. My friend isn't a friend just someone I know and just say hi to in passing, got talking due to connection through a third party and always interested in talking about my hobby. Certainly not jealous pleased that someone has a nice camera - NIKON D600 with 55-200 Len thrown in at 1500. What I was trying to get at was its the person that takes the shot and not always the equipment that matters. The girl went in under the impression that if you have all singing dancing expensive top of the range model it will make you instantly better than everyone who has anything inferior. Quite happy for her so I feel I might have have answered my own question - she just listened to what she wanted to hear and wasn't conned. The salesman would have merely gave her what she wanted. Think that covers it. I'm just happy with my Nikon 3100 and still learning
 
I wish someone had told me to go for the higher end model when I got my first dslr.
It would have saved me money in the long run, rather than getting the beginner gear, outgrow it in 6 months then sell, loose money and buy the camera I should have bought from the start.
 
Well... The 55-200 isn't ideal if she particularly likes shooting landscapes.
 
Hang on, it's not even a fx lens, so the camera will crop down to 10mp or so? And the lens isn't an ideal match for that camera. Budget dx lens in a fx sensor?

Seems like the sales assistant did have a bit of a field day or at least give poor advice unless they're misinformed themselves.

She's likely to get similar results from a dxxxx and the kit lens, at least that would go wider.

Still it's not a bad deal seeing as the d600 is a smudge under £1600 body only, with a lens that can sell for £100 on top. I'd be happy with that deal as I'd just sell the lens.

However it's not an ideal starter kit for your friend especially when you consider her needs (landscapes).
 
Last edited:
Its hardly a con when a D600 body is circa £1600-£1650.Some places even want £1900.
 
Yep not a bad deal,I would have taken it,if she could move the lens on new boxed maybe £100,£1400 for an Nikon D600 nice price :)

Maybe the lens not ideal,but the D600 would make a great landscape camera.
 
Last edited:
Where was the deal brought from by the way? £1400 may tempt me to take the plunge and get a d600.
 
She said was from camera world somewhere in London. Not sure exactly where, hope this helps. Remember I'm only got her word on price she got!
 
woody12 said:
She said was from camera world somewhere in London. Not sure exactly where, hope this helps. Remember I'm only got her word on price she got!
Click to expand...

It gives a basis to negotiate from, even if I don't go to camera world.
 
frankly if they couldn't afford 1500 quid I doubt they would have spent 1500 quid
It wasn't dalylight robbery
it's not like carol vorderman telling old ladies to change their pension company

I just hope that salesman told them the right information and sold your friend a tripod too!

next advice is to read some books/magazines and get to a camera club maybe? or invest in a warm fleece and some walking boots too :)
also maybe an alarm clock! essential for good landscapes I've been told :)
 
Last edited:
woody12 said:
... pleased that someone has a nice camera - NIKON D600 with 55-200 Len thrown in at 1500.
Click to expand...
She's got the latest full-frame Nikon and an (admittedly not quite matching) lens for £1500 and you said she got conned!?
No way, she just got ... enabled, to put it americanly.

Good thread just got better.
Woody thanks for responding.
 
woody12 said:
Hi everyone, sorry about the absence due to working long hours. My friend isn't a friend just someone I know and just say hi to in passing, got talking due to connection through a third party and always interested in talking about my hobby. Certainly not jealous pleased that someone has a nice camera - NIKON D600 with 55-200 Len thrown in at 1500. What I was trying to get at was its the person that takes the shot and not always the equipment that matters. The girl went in under the impression that if you have all singing dancing expensive top of the range model it will make you instantly better than everyone who has anything inferior. Quite happy for her so I feel I might have have answered my own question - she just listened to what she wanted to hear and wasn't conned. The salesman would have merely gave her what she wanted. Think that covers it. I'm just happy with my Nikon 3100 and still learning
Click to expand...

Good to haar what camera your acquaintance got. Sounds like a reasonable deal, maybe you could turn the conversation to wide angle lenses next time you are talking to her to see if she's interested in expanding her lens collection ?
 
Im sorry, but i think the only person conned here is herself.

She has spent 1500 quid whilst doing 0 research. i think that is absolutely obsured! Everybody knows that salesmen/women are paid commission and are paid by the company they work for to try and make people spend more than they would do without them there!

i cant even contemplate spending that much money without making sure that what i actually got was the best product i could get for that amount of money. Besides the fact that the equipment she got was a good deal for the price, she will be happy with it in time. (agreed the lens choice is a bit strange)
 
meatcandy89 said:
Im sorry, but i think the only person conned here is herself.

She has spent 1500 quid whilst doing 0 research. i think that is absolutely obsured! Everybody knows that salesmen/women are paid commission and are paid by the company they work for to try and make people spend more than they would do without them there!
Click to expand...

Whilst in general I agree with that, if she was sold a 55-200mm DX lens as being suitable for use as a landscape lens on an FX camera then she's either been conned, or, at best, been misfortunate enough to have been served by a salesperson with no understanding of what they are selling.
 
Even minimal research on lens would tell you that a 55 - 200 is not best suited to landscapes. Again, if someone can't be bothered and just wants to believe everything a salesman says, or run the risk of getting misinformed by a salesman who doesn't actually no any better then fine. It is their money.
 
Bearing in mind that Cameraworld (if that's correct) are selling the D600 at £1579, the £1500 she got it for with the 55-200 lens seems a reasonable bargain, even if the lens is not ideally suited to landscape work.
 
the sales man had a field day. sold the wrong combo:
-take the DX 55-200mm back for refund.
-buy a Nikkor 24-120mm f4 VR, then a Nikkor 16-35mm f4 VR

but that's more money spent. as I mentioned earlier, she's should take it back. if £1000 is all she wanted to spend, then buying a £1500 full frame body with a cheap glass is just absurd.

unless she wants to end up spending £3000 in total, she's better off sticking with DX format with some good lens.
 
I think she got a fairly reasonable deal IMO. If she'd gone to Jessops she'd have spent more than that on just the body http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/87150/show.html and then would of had to pay extra for a suitable lens.

While the 55-200 lens might not be ideal for landscapes it's not bad for a walkabout zoom and if she gets a cheapish wide zoom to pair it with, like an 18-55 kit lens, to use until she can afford something more suitable instead.
 
modchild said:
I think she got a fairly reasonable deal IMO. If she'd gone to Jessops she'd have spent more than that on just the body http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/87150/show.html and then would of had to pay extra for a suitable lens.

While the 55-200 lens might not be ideal for landscapes it's not bad for a walkabout zoom and if she gets a cheapish wide zoom to pair it with, like an 18-55 kit lens, to use until she can afford something more suitable instead.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of the lenses you recommended are Fx, are they? If not, they aren't really that suitable and just waste a lot of the capability of the D600. Yes, it will accept the lenses and will switch to Dx mode when they're fitted but then the crop factor kicks in and what may seem like a wide angle suddenly isn't!

I believe the best trio of zooms for FF Nikons is their 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all f/2.8. NOT a cheap selection but sometimes referred to as the Holy Trinity. Personally, I can't justify that sort of expense, so have the Sigma equivalent - 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200. I'm sure the Nikkors are better but the Sigmas do everything I need of them at a fraction of the cost! If/when the Sigmas pack in, they may well be replaced by the Nikkors but until then, why spend unnecessarily?
 
It would be interesting to know what the sales person recommended that lens, not only as said it's a DX lens, but also when the person went in and mentioned landscapes (presuming she did, as they normally ask what you will be taking photographs of), the lens was recommended.

I agree she got a bargain price on the body, but she hasn't got the set up, that i presume she said she wanted to take landscape photographs.
 
Reidy36 said:
It would be interesting to know what the sales person recommended that lens, not only as said it's a DX lens, but also when the person went in and mentioned landscapes (presuming she did, as they normally ask what you will be taking photographs of), the lens was recommended.

I agree she got a bargain price on the body, but she hasn't got the set up, that i presume she said she wanted to take landscape photographs.
Click to expand...

What she actually said, what the sales guy said, what she actually got and for exactly how much money... is less than certain.
 
I've heard she was actually out looking to buy a TV but walked into the wrong shop. That sales guy in the camera shop is one of the best around.
 
We don't have the full story. Did your acquaintance give the shop a budget and was persuaded otherwise, or did she just go in and say she wanted a camera to take landscapes and the salesman saw the opportunity to make a big sale?

The lady in question clearly has a lot of responsibility for what happened.

The fact that she has paid £1,500 for a camera that is worth (or would normally retail for) £1,500 does not mean she has not been conned. A con does not have to based on money, it is just persuading someone to do something or believe something that is incorrect.

It was likely that the salesman spotted that she did not know a lot about to cameras and if he did say that anything under £1,000 was worthless and would give barely better than holiday snaps, then it was a con. She was persuaded to believe something that is not true.

While landscapes can be taken with any lens, one with a minimum focal length of 55mm is an unusual one to recommend. Given the effect of a DX lens on FX body it is likely the lady is going to be disappointed that her nice new camera isn't giving her the sort of shots she wants and getting a lens that will give a wide view with the D600 is going to result in more expense. I can only hope this camera & lens combination was recommended through ignorance or mistake. That would not be good, but slightly more acceptable.

I'm not, by a long way, blaming the shop entirely - if you don't do research and don't ask for advice from someone with no financial interest you really are opening yourself up to being misled. However, if the salesman's alleged words are correct, the shop have not provided good advice and would appear to have persuaded the customer to spend more money than necessary and by including that particular lens have not provided her with a set up that will do what she wants.

Wonder if the shop would be happy to use this shopping experience as an example of the advice they give to new customers?

Can only hope your acquaintance enjoys using her camera.

Dave
 
Since the sales guy sold the FX format D600 AND the DX 55-200, at least ONE of those is "not fit for purpose" as defined by the Sale Of Goods Act, and can definitely be returned for a full refund. The error is certainly on the part of the sales guy, who should have known that the DX lens is not a match for either the type of photography your friend wants to shoot OR the camera he sold her.
 
do we know for a fact what models of lens and camera she actually bought she could be a little confused with he model numbers
 
The biggest confusion with Nikons is adding or subtracting zeroes onto model numbers. AFAIK, there's no D6000 and the D60 is no longer a current model.

£1500 for an FF body and any sort of lens doesn't sound like a rip off to me, although I agree that the lens isn't really suitable for the stated purpose. Not only because it's Dx rather than Fx but also because it's not wide enough IMO.

Good luck to her getting a refund (and don't let her be fobbed of with an "I use that lens for landscapes and get great results." line!
 
IMO the salesman was up-selling the body. If you walked into a tv shop say and said "I want the best TV for £1000" They will near always try to push you the £1100+ range. Personally I would of done my homework, spent £1000 on products and £500 on a tutorial course at college if she is a total novice...

Cant comment on the lens... If he sold the wrong lens for the job then that's wrong.
 
Since the retailer has now been named, has one of the mods notified them to give them right of reply?
 
Llamaman said:
Since the retailer has now been named, has one of the mods notified them to give them right of reply?
Click to expand...

If you feel that is necessary, they by all means click the little report post button to notify them.

Much easier to do that than post up asking :)
 
Does nobody else find the O.P's claim a little bit hard to believe?

I work in the seedy world of retail and have done for a number of years. A camera shop makes very little margin selling a camera body or glass in most cases especially big branded glass and especially on recently released kit. They increase their margin selling Insurance, bags, filters, tripods etc. Margin on hardware only increases as the item gets older which is why prices tend to fall after launch.

The current wholesale price single unit price of the D600 when buying 250 units from the suppliers my company use is £1527.25 inc vat, this drops to just under £1525 inc vat if buying 500 units or more. If for example they were using the same wholesalers as the company I work for selling them at £1575 is making 3% margin. Based on this, they would of took a serious loss selling at £1500 with a free 55-200.

It just would not happen...

While retail some stores will accept making a loss on hardware this would only be the case if they were making margin else were i.e insurance, accesories etc. This is not the case here. Nobody will sell something at a loss and why would they, that would be sheer stupidity. It would not have been in the sales persons interest to upsell to a more expensive body and then sell the same at a loss. It would have been in there interests to sell a lower price body so tha the customer would of had a budget left for the things the camera store makes money on and the things they are targeted and paid bonus on.

It would have made much more sense for the salesperson to have sold a lower priced camera body along with insurance and the other things they actually make a profit on and this is how sales people in camera shops are targeted. I don't believe for one minute that this actually happened.
 
Last edited:
I dipped out when the kit was named, because all chance of it being factual had gone out of the window.

It could have been a mistake by the OP but why wouldn't he come back and clarify? It could also be that the OPs 'friend' either doesn't know what kit she's bought or is just being dishonest.

Either way, the slim and vague nature of the story have deemed the thread completely useless.
 
Phil V said:
I dipped out when the kit was named, because all chance of it being factual had gone out of the window.

It could have been a mistake by the OP but why wouldn't he come back and clarify? It could also be that the OPs 'friend' either doesn't know what kit she's bought or is just being dishonest.

Either way, the slim and vague nature of the story have deemed the thread completely useless.
Click to expand...

(y)

it'll probably turn out to be a canon 60D :LOL:
 
Phil V said:
Either way, the slim and vague nature of the story have deemed the thread completely useless.
Click to expand...
Except to defame a retailer who usually has a good reputation. The wonders of Internet anonymity...
 
Llamaman said:
Except to defame a retailer who usually has a good reputation. The wonders of Internet anonymity...
Click to expand...

I think anyone who's allowed this story to alter their opinion of any retailer is probably too stupid to remember the name of the retailer next time they need some gear.;)

It never ceases to amaze me, even after the NoTW fiasco, how many people can be pulled into believing a story just by a shocking headline. It's like they just sit there waiting for something to be disgusted about:bonk:
 
Phil V said:
I think anyone who's allowed this story to alter their opinion of any retailer is probably too stupid to remember the name of the retailer next time they need some gear.;)
Click to expand...

Judging by the number of 'anyone used xxxxx?' threads, a fair number of people use forums as a way of judging potential suppliers. There'll be many more who don't sign up, but find and read the forums from Google.

It's great that we have a forum where we can share our experiences - good and bad - for the benefit of each other and the photography community in general, but we need to mindful that a bad review generating pages of invective is potentially very damaging if not tempered by fairness and a sense of proportion. Alas, most of us (me included) are far quieter about good experiences than bad - the result of which is to make bad stories the general impression. This particularly a problem for small independents who don 't have a huge marketing budget to drown out the 'noise'!

In this case, the story sounds rather implausible. If it is true, then it's pretty shocking but if if it isn't, what do you think the chances are of the OP returning to set the record straight and apologise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top