Feedback - FROWNS

[mannusingh]

They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.

So, you zoom in 800% and discover 24 dead or damaged pixels representing 0.0000015‬% of the 16 million on a consumer grade camera like the XE-1?  ::)

I don't think even a brand new camera will be faultless at this level of pixel peeping!! And yeah, I'm a former Fuji XE-1 system owner.

I second this, many new cameras may have more dead pixels than this.

[Parampreet Dhatt]

Reading this latest frown I gather:

1. Camera Crew has specific photography needs and should have asked for raw files to check for dead/stuck pixels. I can't remember if I've taken more than 5-10 long exposure shots in 5 yrs+ of photography.

2. My new Nikon 750D had dead stuck pixel on the LCD from Day 1. It never bothered me. So my point is if you know you have a low tolerance limit for any unforeseen minor defects ( paint loss, loose grip, missing cables) you should stick to buying new equipment.

I thoroughly agree with both your points here.

3. I wonder if B&H , KEH advertise stuck or dead pixels when selling gear ?? I have come across 2-3 buyers who have had remorse after buying gear. Maybe the gear didn't meet their expectations or they just got over G.A.S having once used the equipment.

His (overzealous) attempts at forcing a return and stonewalling any other attempts at restitution in spite of his own acknowledgement that the camera is in perfect cosmetic and working condition in all aspects (except the issue in question), struck me as either buyers' remorse, having found a better deal or that the Fuji system didn't satisfy his needs fully. However, this is just conjecture and I may be wrong here.

4. X-E1 is not a new camera. Getting one in good condition as the buyer agrees in rare. (The buyer seems to have already made a killer deal ) I would have not bothered to take the hassle or explaining over such details and simply taken the camera back.

Regarding returning the item, I would happily agree to a return provided there is a justified ground for doing so. Offering a return just to avoid "hassles" may encourage a trend of "try and buy" activities on the forum where buyers may "hassle" the seller into accepting a return for an item that they just didn't like.
I'm not sure under what circumstances would even a camera manufacturer consider offering a full refund on a new item. As an example, even Nikon did not offer any refunds on D600 bodies which exhibited the now-famous sensor dust/oil spots issue due to defective shutter assembly (a MAJOR issue in my opinion) and only offered repairs through the service center. Hence, I don't believe a seller selling a 2nd hand item should be expected to go over and above what even a camera manufacturer would offer in similar circumstances.

Sufficient evidence of willful concealment of any defect by the seller would be a justified ground for a return/refund in my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

Also, in the context of the issue at hand, no manufacturer offers any guarantees that dead or stuck pixels would not be present even on a brand new item or not appear over time on the sensor. These issues can occur in any camera with age and normal wear and tear. The only solution offered by the manufacturers in this case is to take the item to the service center and get it repaired there.

[Bharat Varma]

There are TWO types of noise reduction in digital cameras.

One is high ISO noise reduction, which I understand you do not want done in-camera, and that's fine. Most people do prefer to do this manually.

The second one is "Long Exposure Noise Reduction", which shoots a second frame (dark frame) and subtracts it from the first (main) image, in order to remove the long exposure noise (which occurs unavoidably in ALL consumer cameras). That's what I asked you to check, and switch on if it was off.

See this -

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/npan-blog-testing-your-cameras-tolerance-long-exposure-noise

   
• Do the initial images shared with you show prior to the sale show any such pixels?
• At what shutter speed do you start seeing the pixels?
• Do you have long exposure noise reduction enabled? Also known as dark frame subtraction? Please check in the manual and enable it, then take some shots.
• Since the seller has committed to reimburse the full cost of the service, please show the camera to Fuji service and share the service report.

dear admin Bharat Varma

1. yes the initial image that has been uploaded prior to the Sale, File DSCF6030.RAF, in the link do show the "dead/hot/stuck pixel".
They are apparent at 100% zoom in, at 300%, they show a cluster, at 800%, it shows there are 24 damaged pixels. 12 of them severely damaged, rest 12 in their surrounding.
At slower shutter speed, the test and the photographs I had clicked, in base ISO 200, the effect is more prominent.

I do understand that digital sensor might have, or, develop "damaged pixels (dead/hot/stuck)". Had this "damaged pixels" been scattered one here and there, I would have not created this frown post.
My fear is that this damage might spread, as it is clustered on one place.
Its 2 pixel in 6 row that is heavily damaged (permanently "pink") and the periphery left column and right column of another 12 pixels that is somewhat damaged.

(I deny that I have said the seller that only one or two pixels are damaged.)
The RAF files are existing, pre Sale and also post Sale, so any third can verify the actual no of damaged pixels.

2. it appears is 200 iso, at 1/20th of a sec, as seen in the pics uploaded by the Seller.

3. I haven't enabled 'in camera noise reduction' as I prefer it to use the Lightroom or capture one noise reduction algorithm.

4. I am fully OK if the Seller is agreeing to pay the cost of repairing of such "damaged pixels".
I only disagreed to "split in 50:50".

[Bharat Varma]

From Fuji -

"To reduce "noise" (mottling) in long time-exposures, select [ON] for [LONG EXPOSURE NR] in the shooting menu. Note that this may increase the time needed to record images after shooting."

http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x100t/shooting/long_time-exposure/index.html

[Parampreet Dhatt]

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a long exposure with my spanking new (1.5 months old) and top of the line Sony a7R III (representing the epitome of mirrorless technology) with the Long Exposure Noise Reduction setting turned off and this is what I got:  :D :D

[camera crew]

Dear Admin Bharat Varma,
I did read that NPAN Blog in Bhphotovideo.com. Thank you for sharing that.
I did Long exposure Noise reduction in camera just now, and took test pics. The problem persists.

This is not a "noise" but a defective pixel bunch. It can be dead/hot/stuck, whatever.
It is an array of 24 identifiable damaged pixels, 2 in 6 rows and rest 6 on either side of that.
No matter what we do, its a permanent damage. And I am telling this bcoz I have a bit of technical degrees and understanding of photosites and their working principles.

My point is, that one does not need to zoom into pixel peeping level, a mere 100% zoom in in any RAW processing software, be it Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Capture One, will show this issue. I zoomed in detail, to find exactly how severe the damage is.

As the seller is an experienced photographer and technically well knowledged about photo editing too, such pixel damage could not have escaped his eyes while checking the pics prior to the Sale.

I would not have created this issue if the damaged pixels were spread over different parts of the image. Any new digital sensor could have it. Considering the XE1 camera age, and that it is a second hand buy, I could have been ok with it.
The concern is that is is clustered in one spot.


I also want to keep some clarifications about comments I read from other members.

Firstly, Long exposure Photography is not my special requirement, If I need to do that, I have a Fuji 50R and Phase one cameras to take care.

Secondly, those who have Pointed about GAS, I am sorry, I don't have that.
kindly see my queries to WTS in history, how much I comment on these posts.

Thirdly, yes I do believe second hand equipment will be not "brand new type".
But, there should be a disclosure of those defects atleast if in the sensor of a digital camera.
Here is my point. Mr. Parampreet is a senior member, an experienced photographer and photo editor. Its is very unlikely of him to miss such pixel defects.

Fourth, I did not need to zoom to 800% and pixel peep. A mere 100% zoom will be enough. I zoomed in to find the severity of the issue.

And lastly, I do not have buying remorse. I know this camera was a "killer deal" as pointed by a member, but then, on hindsight, I feel the Seller agreed at that price, bcoz, maybe he knew that it has defective pixels.




This was a deal that did not go through well. first time in my JJMPF history of about 8 years.
I am a JJMPF member when we did not even have such good resolution pics of items to be sold, no name, date, sl. number tags. People relied more on each others honest opinions. Even Phone nos, forget whatsapp, were not allowed on WTS posts.

I should have been more responsible to ask for more test pics before [snip]


If anyone really keen to understand/find/judge who is wrong, kindly take 10 RAF files, some before and couple after the Sale.

Thank you.
I have nothing more to say.

Mod Note:
This post was edited to bring it into compliance with RULE 23a.

[Bharat Varma]

Please send me the test pics that you have just taken.

[mannusingh]

Just one more thing, have you tried taking the actual pictures that you would take on the field and see if this affects your pictures. Just black long shutter releases would also increase a lot of amp noise and make this look a lot worse than it is. I think in actual long shutter pictures these dead pixels will not show up.

[camera crew]

The first identified picture was a long shutter of bridge on river hoogly. That was the very next morning i got thw camera, even before i tried the test pics with lens cap on. After that, i did some tests, bcoz i thought those "damaged pixel spot" was some artifacts or foliage floating on the river.
One of the 2nd lot of RAF files has my self portrait with light painting. There are pictures of foliage, shot in 1/500th of a second.
The most important thing, the RAF files shared by the seller in that link, especially the first one, the damaged pixel is noticable in 50% zoom in Lightroom Classic.
All damaged pixel in one spot is noticable in 50% magnification, forget 100% zoomed pixel peeping.


Kindly PM me your email id. I shall share the RAF of photograpghs of actual scene, tests with lenscap attached and tests today with long exposure noise reduction on, in tge camera after suggested by admin.


Just a small reminder, i have purchased and sold more than 20 items in this forum for last 8 years. Never i have put a frown. Never any seller could point i did a bad deal with them. There have been people who waited months after my part payments.
Never anyone i have sold to, have put a frown. No buyer ever accused me of stating wrong description and incorrect pricing.
Also if i had G.A.S as pointed out, i would have not bought so less and sold so little.

I am keeping three attachments.
First, DSCF6063.RAF is a 50% zoom of the RAW file of long exposure i did where i first noticed this damage pixel.
Second DSCF6030.RAF is the 100% zoom of the RAW file the seller clicked at 1/20th of a sec, pre Sale, as he shared in the post.
Third, DSCF6169.RAF is a test pic with long exposure noise reduction on, clicked today, as suggested by Mr. Bharat.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[VikramF]

I'm not going to comment on the 2/12/16/15000 pixel out of 16 million pixels issue.


The rules state: "Caution!  Buyers must read the Forum Rules and do their own due diligence before buying"
[/size]
Buyers must do their OWN due diligence BEFORE buying. No matter who they are buying from. If they close the deal in a hurry out of even possible fear of losing out on a bargain, well, that's their decision to have bought sight unseen.

If the buyer does due diligence after buying and finds something wrong, well then the buyer needs to take complete ownership of their decisions and not lay it at anyone else's feet,.