Page 1 of Decent camera

This is worth a look:

www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=11392943710&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X3Jldmlld3M=&product_uid=91983

Nicely made (proper metal case, not silver plastic), good screen + viewfinder, AA batteries, decent lens and very fast.

-----------
"Either this guy`s dead, or my watch has stopped."

This item was edited on Thursday, 29th September 2005, 11:13

Suit yourselves. I thought it was a good deal, and I might even buy one myself, as none of mine can manage anything like 3fps burst speed. Did I mention that?

If you do order one, I expect it would fit one of these:

www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=80088

-----------
"Either this guy`s dead, or my watch has stopped."

This item was edited on Friday, 30th September 2005, 21:37

Looks good - I have had the 2Mp QV2000 and 3MP QV3000 previously.
Great cameras, notably that because Casio doesn`t make Lenses, Imagers and LCDs itself, it selects the best from elsewhere.
My QV`s both had F2.0 Canon Lenses and Sony CCDs!
The use of AA batteries is a huge plus, cheap, reliable and long-lived - I recommend buying a few sets and taking them with you.

I also recommend getting a good warantee - my QV3000`s Flash sensor failed (common fault) whilst it was still in extended warantee - other people had to pay £100-£150 to get their`s fixed!

Regards
Dig

Quote:
I also recommend getting a good warantee - my QV3000`s Flash sensor failed (common fault) whilst it was still in extended warantee - other people had to pay £100-£150 to get their`s fixed!

I`ll bet they didn`t know that, in UK law, suppliers have a liability for faulty goods for up to six years - even without an extended warranty.

Clive

They do Clive, but just to clarify in layman`s terms what the legal position is under the Sale of Goods Act :

If a fault develops WITHIN 12 months it is the supplier who has to prove that the fault was `your fault` (ie that it was not a manufacturing fault) and if they cannot then they have to repair/replace as appropriate.

If a fault develops AFTER 12 months, then the purchaser (ie you and me) have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fault WAS a manufacturing fault and that one might reasonably have expected the item to have still been working up to the time the fault developed (max 6 years). If we can then the supplier has to repair/replace, and if we cannot then the loss is ours.

Hope that clarifies for others an area often misunderstood.

This item was edited on Saturday, 1st October 2005, 23:25

Thanks for your input ra2000, I should have made it clear that my short response was specific to this thread, not a general statement about the Sale of Goods Act.

However, doesn`t the onus for proving that the fault was a manufacturing one switch from supplier to consumer 6 months after purchase, not 12?

In the case of this camera, I think that we can safely say that the life expectancy has not yet been reached and since the flash sensor failure was described as a `common fault` then it would reasonable to say that this model had a design flaw (or an `inherent fault`) which affected its durability,ie it was not `fit for purpose`. It should have been easy to win damages (eg a reduction in the repair bill commensurate with the age of the camera).

It is not in the interest of suppliers to `play fair` when it comes to dealing with faulty goods, if they can get rid of us by saying that it`s up to the manufacturers or it`s out of warranty etc, they will. We have to keep pushing and be prepared to refer the case to the local trading standards office.

I would advise anyone with faulty goods (and you know that you`re not to blame) to check the forums to see if others are having similar problems and don`t forget to post details of your equipment`s faults. That way we can uncover the design flaws and build stronger cases against shoddy uncooperative suppliers.

If nothing else, have a quick gander at www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

Clive