Digital camera: low picture quality: right to refund?

Julius412

I bought a digital camera yesterday, and I have been
staggered by its low picture quality. I would like
to get a refund, and I am wondering if the law would
be on my side here, i.e. can I say that the camera
is not "of merchantable quality".

I've compared the new camera's pictures with some
pictures from a camera that I bought 6 years ago,
and the older pictures are considerably better.
I would expect digital cameras have advanced a little
in 6 years, particularly given the fact that the new
camera has 14MP, whereas the old one had 3.2MP.

Admittedly, I paid more for the old camera. I can't
remember what I paid, but adjusting for inflation,
it may have been twice the price or higher.

I'll finish by giving some extra details that may or
may not be useful.

The new camera is a Casio Exilim EX-Z16, and I paid
73.99 for it. (I will post the name of the retailer
later, but I don't want to post it yet, in case the
retailer finds this post and posts disinformation
about my legal rights.)

The old camera was a Nikon Coolpix 3700.

91011

very difficult for something like this to give "bad" pictures. Its a 12meg compact camera, so my guess is the setting are wrong.

Have you read the handbook and re-set the various settings.

The camera can take pics in 3meg - 12 meg size, so possibly its set at 3meg.

It is an entry level camera and about the same level as €200 cameras were about 5 years ago, but with a higher definition. - It also has decent reviews.

Maybe go back to the store and ask them to show you the different settings, as I doubt very much if there's a fault with it.

Julius412

I'm pretty confident that the settings are appropriate
(sorry, I should have covered this point in my
first post). I have the picture size set to the
highest possible value; I have the picture quality
set to "Fine", which is the higher of the 2 available
settings; and when I took my test photos, I placed
the camera on a firm surface and turned on its
"self-timer" feature (i.e. I configured it to wait 2
seconds after the shutter release button is pressed,
to ensure that the camera would be stationary when
the picture was taken).

I've read the paper handbook. I haven't read all
140-odd pages of the PDF handbook, but I've read the
parts that seem relevant.

P. Breathnach

People seem to have forgotten the importance of the optics in a camera. No matter how high the image resolution, if the light is passed through an inferior lens system, you are not going to get fantastic results.

In the good old days of film cameras, Nikon were known for good optics, and Casio were not. I suspect that has not changed.

listermint

There are other items to consider,

Environment, Light conditions. You may not be comparing like for like. Are you just using the general Auto setting and how confident are you with the other presets on the unit?

the_syco

Julius412 wrote: »

turned on its
"self-timer" feature

Have you tried taking normal shots? Self timer does just that: it should be focused first. Try taking a picture of something, and then compare it to the picture you have now. I'm thinking it took the picture, but didn't automatically focus on the correct place before shooting.

ch750536

I would chance this one with the retailer. Take in examples on a laptop if possible showing the poor quality. Basically your argument is that it's not of the high quality you would expect, therefore you are unhappy with it. See what happens.

I'd also try with the manufacturer, again state your examples and see what they have to say.
Unfortunately some of this is objective.

Julius412

I've posted some photographs which I took since
starting this thread. They're here:

http://octopus.nfshost.com/cameraquestion/samplesXXX/

(Remove the "XXX" to get the correct URL; I'm deliberately
breaking the URL, because I don't want search engines
downloading these images, because I will get hit with
bandwidth charges.)

They were taken in auto mode, using the self-timer,
with picture quality set to "Fine".

To me, the picture quality is simply unacceptable.
For example, view the first image (cimg0040.jpg)
at its full resolution, and look at the photograph
of Enda Kenny (on the left-hand side, right above
"JUST WHO IS ENDA KENNY").

By the way, I want to correct something I said in
my first post. I said the camera had 14MP, but (as
91011 said earlier) it actually has 12MP (or 12.1 to
be precise).

jor el

I can't see anything wrong with those pictures, so your camera appears to be fine. If you're unhappy with the quality, then you need to buy a better camera. This is a cheap digital camera, and probably doesn't have a ver high quality lenses. The pixel count is somewhat irrelevant if the camera lens is poor. If you want high quality images, get a Cannon or Nikon. I think that this is as good as a cheap Casio is going to get.

maddogcollins

The images you link to are taken in a dark low light corner.

Try taking pictures in a well lit area and see the results.

Reviews seem to be of the opinion that the camera does not work well in low light (http://www.digital-camera.com/3099/the-casio-exilim-ex-z16-is-a-good-beginner-camera.html#stay-away-from-low-light ).

Flankerb

That camera did well for the conditions you took your test shots in. Take a few shots outside in daylight then compare.

91011

absolutely zilch wrong with pictures / resolution that are given as examples.

If you want better pics, you have to invest a lot more in the equipment, but for everyday photos, the images you have shown are as good as I'd expect for any compact digital camera.

BrianD

Unfortunately, in these situations that are the same as picture or sound quality of a TV, the retailer will just say it's your opinion and point to the technical specs. Another poster thought the images were OK, I thought so but thought the colour of the flowers were a bit flat. I'm sure another person will differ again.

Your Nikon probably gave a better picture because they are reknown for their cameras and the lens is what the different. The megapixel count is only one factor. It's like plugging an analogue cable tv signal into a HD 1080p TV. Picture won't be great.

Cabaal

To be honest a compact camera on auto mode in low light, those pics look fine its not a DSLR after all.

People see a big megapixel numbers and assume its fantastic, they forget about the sensor quality, its a low price camera so its a lower quality sensor....that however doesn't mean its fault.

In short you get what you pay for.

PCPhoto

bit stupid of me to ask .... but did you research the camera before purchasing ? or did you just turn up to local shop and say "I'll have that one please !"

I believe that all purchases have a 7 day return policy (or maybe its just for online retailers) ...but have you tried bringing the camera back and explaining to the seller that you believe it does not focus properly and can you exchange it for a different one.

most retailers will allow you to exchange it.

91011

PCPhoto wrote: »

I believe that all purchases have a 7 day return policy (or maybe its just for online retailers)

most retailers will allow you to exchange it.

PLEASE don't give information like this unless you are 100% certain - it causes no end of problems in shops. There is no onus on any bricks & mortar store whatsoever to take back / refund / exchange a product unless it is faulty.

Many retailers will allow (but it not a legal requirement) an exchange if the product is in FULLY resaleable condition. Not something that has been opened / used and then customer hot happy with it.

BTW - I'd know casio as a calculator / watch manufacturer, wouldn't have known them as camera people.

the_syco

Julius412 wrote: »

I would expect digital cameras have advanced a little
in 6 years, particularly given the fact that the new
camera has 14MP, whereas the old one had 3.2MP.

As I have learnt: do not confuse "bigger size of picture" with "better picture".

rubadub

the_syco wrote: »

do not confuse "bigger size of picture" with "better picture".

Indeed, if I saw 2 cameras in the same shop and were the same brand and same price but one was higher megapixels I would go with the lower megapixel one -my choice might be wrong but if working on the same profits I would expect more money was put into the lens on the lower pixel one, and the ratings of pixels is ridiculous these days. I took pics with a 3MP years ago and they were used on full A4 brochures in work and looked fine. You would swear people are printing out holiday snaps on billboards!

Same goes for TVs, many jump for higher screen size, like my mate ended up going for a 50", he had a 42" in mind which was on offer but saw the 50" at the same price and got it without checking reviews, but the picture was quite poor compared to the high end 42" he could have gotten.

Julius412

Problem solved: I was able to get a refund from the
retailer without any trouble, because the camera has
defects more serious than just poor picture quality.

The main problem was that on one occasion it became
unresponsive, and when I was eventually able to
restart it, it was back in its initial state (i.e. the
state it's in when you turn it on for the first time),
and it seemed to have lost all the changes I had made
to its settings.

Another problem was that it seemed to lose power
spontaneously, just as if I had pressed the on/off
button, even though I hadn't.

Just for the record: some posters suggested taking
photos in daylight. I took one, and the result was
still very poor.

In answer to PCPhoto: yes, I did research the camera
a little, though not as thoroughly as I should have.

Thank you to everyone who helped.

listermint

This one is what you should be looking at

http://www.ibood.com/ie/en


only available today though.