When the camera you buy becomes the deciding factor for your ethics rating

David Lyga said:

OK, by 1978 I learned that 35mm truly was not trash and opted for the rather sensational (and original) AE-1. I never looked back, but continued with Plus-X (no Verichrome Pan alternative for that size). Then came along T Max 100 and I tried it and married it. I have to admit that its grain is even finer than that of the discontinued Panatomic-X. So that is the sordid story of David Lyga's introduction to this obsession. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Haa I never ‘liked’ Plus-X but a photo by my front door proves I was an idiot. What always draws me to a film is the pictures that I take on it and the intense desire to get more like that.

Berkeley Mike said:

I see this as a fairly simple event in a business model. Not everyone is comfortable with that model.

Click to expand...

Right. And few trumpet their on superior ethics while demeaning others.

Is party A content?
Is party B content?

Good, then that's all that matters.

firemachine69 said:

Is party A content?
Is party B content?

Good, then that's all that matters.

Click to expand...

You need to be arrested for rationality. - David Lyga

honestly I would have doubled the price and told him I had bought the camera from him to begin with.

I have had 1 dealing with Cardinal Camera via ebay. Bought a camera, and it was damaged. Although it was labeled as "good usable condition" in the listing. Canon FTB, the self timer lever wouldn't stay upright, and the collar lock on the shutter trigger was frozen in the ON position. Although they supposedly have sold and "repaired" cameras for over 50 years, the person I dealt with had no idea of those features being present on cameras in general, let alone the camera I had bought.