Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: damaged lens using the PSA/ responsibility?  (Read 1681 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: July 25, 2005, 02:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, but that is simply one of the risks you run when using third-party equipment and accessories. It's typically not possible for the third-party manufacturer to know the exact tolerances and manufacturing variations from unit to unit because the manufacturers typically do not publicize the exact specifications and limits. The best the third-party manufacturers can do is test a group of samples large enough to establich a meaningful average. If your lens deviates significantly enough from the norm that attaching it to the Zoerk adapter damaged it, that isn't necessarily Zoerk's fault. And if you were foolish enough to jam the lens into the adapter forcefully enough to damage it even though it didn't fit properly, that could be considered self-inflicted damage. IMO what you're being offered is more than fair.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2005, 06:42:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps if you posted a photo of the lens in the adapter showing how & where the element is rubbing, and how the damage happened, it would be easier to see exactly what you're talking about and what to watch for to avoid doing the same thing.
Logged

Jer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2005, 01:22:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I have recently posted this same message on robgalbraith and outbackphoto's forums.

     Some time ago I read a thread discussing the inability to focus on infinity and shift using the Pentax 35 FA (with the Zork PSA). After reading this I discovered that my set up was having this problem and that slight damage to the rear barrell had occured. I contacted the fellow I purchased the PSA from, the Zork distributor, and wrote that I expect Zork will take responsibility for the cost of the repair. His last response was that it's unfair that Zork take full financial responsibility. He wrote: "We work with the samples we're provided, as well as with the technical specifications provided by the lens manufacturer. The kind of issue that you have is not dissimilar from what has happened with some SLR owners and third party electronic flash units that happen to damage the circuitry of the camera. In such cases, both the flash manufacturer and camera manufacturer work with KNOWN specs, but then you have the exceptions - out of tolerance units."
I'm shaking my head in disbelief here. Am I crazy or is this not an open and shut case? He recomended the lens to me, I use their device without any forewarning of possible risks, the PSA causes the damage and I should help pay for part of the repair?
The distributor is a fair man; he has been nothing but helpful. His resolve is causing me to question what seems obvious. Would anyone care to shed some light? Thanks,
Jeremy
Logged
Jer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2005, 04:00:30 PM »
ReplyReply

"And if you were foolish enough to jam the lens into the adapter forcefully enough to damage it even though it didn't fit properly, that could be considered self-inflicted damage."

     This wasn't the case. I don't know if you're familiar with the PSA and it's function (there's a review and a link on Michael's site), but the point is the lens fit properly into it. It was only while I was turning the nob on top of the PSA to shift the camera body that the rear element brushed very slightly against the PSA walls. I had no clue what to expect handling this device or how it should feel & respond. The lens was recommended to me by the PSA distributor and there was no warning that this could be a possible risk.
     The way I see it is I've provided them a fabulous service. I've brought a concern to their attention and saved them and their customers the risk of this taking place in the future. The distributor has also claimed that this is very rare and that no other users have damaged their rear element, which I learned today is false. It may very well be rare, but there is at east one other user who has done the same as myself and notified Zork immediately. If it is indeed such a rare case then why not pay for the repairs?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad