Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
new is new.
you wouldn't pay full price for a partially eaten cheeseburger would you? That depends on whether the bites were made by Kristen Bell or not... (House of Lies)
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
How to tell the real shutter count on a Nikon:
Do this:
Load the image file on FlickR.
Get the full details of the image file.
Somewhere along that pile of displayed data will be the actual (real) shutter count.
Works only for Nikon. (not sure with Canon or others, the last time I tried, it didn't have the data, but that was 2 years ago, so things might have changed since then)
.
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10747
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
How to tell the real shutter count on a Nikon:
Do this:
Load the image file on FlickR.
Get the full details of the image file.
Somewhere along that pile of displayed data will be the actual (real) shutter count.
Works only for Nikon. (not sure with Canon or others, the last time I tried, it didn't have the data, but that was 2 years ago, so things might have changed since then)
. all Flickr does is read EXIF data. and (as mentioned by several) if the board has been replaced, it will only reflect the count since the replacement.
The only camera that I know of that doesn't record the actuation count is Sony. but I could be mistaken.
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
all Flickr does is read EXIF data. and the actual shutter count on a Nikon camera.
.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
OK so in the extended EXIF data Nikon stamps a shutter count still. It cannot be reset by the store nor should it read anything beyond 1 when you get it. In fact when I had a D80 shutter replaced by Nikon the count was not reset.
Canon used to stamp their EXIF data as well but no longer do, you can connect a USB cable and check directly. Granted they number the raw files that way so its not hard to figure out if you are the original owner and count the roll overs.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
pullins photography wrote:
Nikon says there's no such thing as a way to count shutter actuations. Why should I believe otherwise? The sky is green, and I said so.
Of course you shouldn't believe otherwise.
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US
Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Your camera has been used and should NOT be passed on as a new unit.
Demand a replacement from the store. (or a discounted used price with the difference in amount credited to you)
It's not about the "newness" or shutter count.
It's about the principle of ethical behaviour and honesty of business practice.
The consumer have the rights to be sold a new product when the vendor says they are selling a new product.
Even if it says shutter count "1", someone used the thing before you did.
Consult/report this matter to a consumer protection group in your area if the store gives you a hard time replacing it.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/
. Bolding random words and linking an Australian agency doesn't help anyone in California like the OP.
160 is perfectly normal for a brand new camera. The plant does burn-in testing of every camera that is assembled. My first dSLR had a count of 300ish.
Many cameras have had the count reset to 0 to make people feel like they aren't being cheated.
Photographer
DELETED-ACCOUNT_
Posts: 10303
Los Angeles, California, US
The big issue is:
Does it have left-focus issues?
Green-tint to files or lcd?
Oil/dirt on sensor?
If not, then why would you complain about 0.0008% of the shutter life being used considering the alternative is to return/exchange it for a copy that might be defective or "used" just as much. 161 is nothing, and barring any real reason to warrant an exchange (like one of the above issues) I'd get over it and just keep it. Hell, my POS D7000 was at around 280,000 actuations last I checked a month ago before I sold it at a discount. Still worked too.
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
David Parsons wrote:
Bolding random words and linking an Australian agency doesn't help anyone in California like the OP.
160 is perfectly normal for a brand new camera. The plant does burn-in testing of every camera that is assembled. My first dSLR had a count of 300ish.
Many cameras have had the count reset to 0 to make people feel like they aren't being cheated. The link is applicable to anyone in California.
Photographer
LMJ Photo
Posts: 208
Chicago, Illinois, US
RKD Photographic wrote:
Of course there is - look in the full EXIF info in an editing program such as Photoshop - it's right there.
For this shot of my coffee-mug, I look in the RAW Data panel under 'file info', scroll down and I can see that whereas this is frame number RK_9396, the 'raw' image number (shutter-count) is actually 60174.
aux:ImageNumber>60174
Photographer
YZF Jeff
Posts: 256
Statesboro, Georgia, US
it's odd i checked a .cr2 raw file in photoshop from a recent shoot and this is what i found:
< aux:ImageNumber>0
but yet i can get an actual number through Magic Lantern - 26,702 on the shutter count screen. interesting.
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US
Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
The link is applicable to anyone in California.
|