Fantasea housing trouble - buyer beware

[padiscubapro]

I believe the photographer is using a 14-45mm Olympus zoom like my 14-45mm and not the 14-54mm. We talked about it here:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=185372

I do not have a 14-54mm but it sounds good so far.

The Olympus 35mm marco with 6 lens elements compared to the 14-54mm zoom with 15 lens elements...which lens will produce the highest quality picture?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_35mm.asp
http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_14mm.asp
http://www.olympusamerica.com/seg_section/seg_pressDetails.asp?pressNo=438

The less glass the better for higher quality.

I have never used the 35mm macro, but I have compared the 14-54 and 14-45 and there is absolutely no comparison..

 

[f3nikon]

I have never used the 35mm macro, but I have compared the 14-54 and 14-45 and there is absolutely no comparison..

Thanks for the input

 

[Mariozi]

I saw the photo.
I am used to remove scratches of dome ports... I have done for a dozen houses and have seen many more that were, beyond concert.
One can never be sure, but this type of scratch, single line like (with a paired) one is more likely to happen dry... rocks and uw damage tend to be shorter and more like a bruise than a cut.
Anyway, I love my Sea&Sea's...

 

[rjsimp]

Fantasea sold me a housing that did not have ports to support the 14-54mm lens I have for my new Oly E-330. This is the latest customer service I have received after sending back the product ($137.60 shipping out of my pocket) and asking for a refund (this is a good example of how all of my dealings with this company have been through all of this transaction). I have been dealing with this mess since December. I thought this last response from them (before I initiated a dispute with my credit card company) might be of use to anyone that is thinking of buying products from Fantasea.

Without reading all the posts in this thread and after reading the email they sent you, I have to say it sounds like they are trying to work with you. 99% of all underwater camera equipment sales are final once they are taken under water from my experience. That is why I spend a lot of time in the house using the housing and making sure everything works perfect the way I would expect.

I don't know the full story as to why you returned it. It must have worked well enough to take in the water so maybe it is just that they don't make the port for the one lense you want to use. Many times housings don't accomodate every lense for a camera. My D200 can't use every lense in my Subal housing.

I guess what I am saying here is it sounds like they are willing to take it back and refund you at least most of your money. I can see the fact that they don't want to refund the money for the damaged port and that seems justified since you did use it underwater in the first place. If it had never been used, then I would see you having an argument.

Just my opinion, but I think you should be happy they are refunding any money at all and in the future, try out all the features of a housing in your house first and make sure you are happy with it before you dunk it.

 

[SeaYoda]

The basic reasons I object to this transaction costing me $387.00 are found in this post:

It's interesting that this comes back to a difference in opinion of what my beef is. The scratch is just icing on a very ugly cake. There has been an immediate assignment of blame to me - no possible way that it could have been damaged like the first housing I got. If I am responsible (which may be the case because it was in my hands last) then I will make things right. To immediately jump against me and make this the important issue is not good customer service. This totally misses the issues that I have. That is part of my problem with the transaction.

The real meat of the matter lies in other issues. I disagree with much more import things in the transaction. At best customer service was "we told him" "he did this to himself" "he wants the world", would anyone like to be treated like that? I disagree that I'm responsible (as stated in this thread) for buying a product that I was told would not work from the beginning (I would have to be on a suicide mission or a total loony). I disagree that the burden of shipping should be on my shoulders if the company made the mistake of selling me something that was misrepresented (how be it unintentional). I disagree that there should be a restocking fee for a product that has to be redesigned to do what it originally stated it would do. I think these issues are the ones that I'd most like to have rectified. These are the issues that would affect future buyers. Most people won't have a scratched port to deal with.

Fantasea agrees that this was a deal gone sideways. They can't deny that they never had the ports to cover my needs (not intentional but who should be responsible for that?). They have even redesigned the housing. I spent several months working with them to try and make this right. If the housing would have done what I originally asked for (and even tried several work arounds to fix), I would be the owner and user of the housing today. As one who tried faithfully to use their product, I can say it would not work. At some point responsibility shifts back to the manufacturer to bite the bullet and say "Oops, my bad" and not damage the customer. That has not happened in this case.

Would anyone like to pay shipping charges to a company that did not have a viable product that the merchant marketed but did not exist? Is this the business model to follow in order to be successful? I say no to these questions and disagree with the stand of Fantasea and Optical Ocean that I have financial responsibility for this transaction. I'm using all the pathways open to me to exercise my rights. I wish this were not necessary, but since it is, I thought I'd share my journey. I hope things work out better for others that travel this road.

 

[rjsimp]

The basic reasons I object to this transaction costing me $387.00 are found in this post:



Fantasea agrees that this was a deal gone sideways. They can't deny that they never had the ports to cover my needs (not intentional but who should be responsible for that?). They have even redesigned the housing. I spent several months working with them to try and make this right. If the housing would have done what I originally asked for (and even tried several work arounds to fix), I would be the owner and user of the housing today. As one who tried faithfully to use their product, I can say it would not work. At some point responsibility shifts back to the manufacturer to bite the bullet and say "Oops, my bad" and not damage the customer. That has not happened in this case.

Would anyone like to pay shipping charges to a company that did not have a viable product that the merchant marketed but did not exist? Is this the business model to follow in order to be successful? I say no to these questions and disagree with the stand of Fantasea and Optical Ocean that I have financial responsibility for this transaction. I'm using all the pathways open to me to exercise my rights. I wish this were not necessary, but since it is, I thought I'd share my journey. I hope things work out better for others that travel this road.

Just a quick question.. Why didn't you just return it when you knew it wouldn't work as they represented? Why even try to work with them. I figure you paid money for it and once you knew it wasn't what you paid for, you should have just returned it and looked for a better solution. Maybe that would have avoided the dive, maybe not as you might have not realized before you took the first dip. Of course in that case, it goes back to my point I made in my first post; I would really test things completely out of the water before the first dive to make sure it works and if it doesn't, then return it for a full refund..

BTW, on the shipping charges. IF it was truely misrepresented, I agree they should pay for all shipping charges if you returned it promptly. The fact you worked with them and dove with the camera though, I think you paying the shipping charges is justified as you in effect accepted the product as it was and used it. Its a horrible lesson to learn, but I would bet anything it doesn't happen again.

 

[SeaYoda]

I had the original broken housing in my hands in December. I sent it back immediately and did not get the replacement until the end of February. The long time period was spent waiting for the company to get all the parts together. They recommended that they get a chance to look at all the parts before sending them to me (to be sure things were correct). I sent everything back, the second time, at the beginning of March after one dive and waiting to hear why they did not send me a port with zoom control.

If the dome port with zoom control had existed for my housing, I would have stuck with them. The housing is not a bad product for the price. The reason I worked with them is because they didn't know that they didn't manufacture the dome with zoom control and they always said we could make something work. I unfortunately have been rewarded for my loyalty and patience by receiving a bill for $387.00.

 

[RonFrank]

I have never used the 35mm macro, but I have compared the 14-54 and 14-45 and there is absolutely no comparison..

Based on this response, I have no clue what you are saying? Is one better? Which one? Do you have any results that would indicate these findings?

 

[RonFrank]

The less glass the better for higher quality.

This is not true, and has not been true for a LONG time.

If you want evidence other than results from lenses like the Nikon 80~200mm F2.8 from decades of use by professionals just take a look at the MTF ratings on Photodo.

www.photodo.com

Several zooms like the Nikon 80~200f2.8 outperform many fixed focal length lenses in the Nikon lineup. It rates 4.1, but anything really above 3.5 is outstanding. The nikon 20mm f2.8 for example rates out at 3.5.

Here's a shocker, but no surprise! Nikons BEST lens (or at least the best lens tested) is also their LEAST expensive. That's right, the Nikon 50mm 1.8D at 4.4. A couple lenses perform along side that lens, but they are mostly AI-S lenses like the 85mm f1.4.

If one is not familiar with the MTF, it was developed by Zeiss/Hasselblad, and is generally the standard equipment for measuring lens quality. The scale goes from 0~5 higher being better. Unfortunately photodo does not seem to do much in the way of MTF testing since they were bought out, and the site revamped. Still, a great resource for lens reviews, and specifications, and it does include new lenses without MTF data that I've seen for the most part.

 

[padiscubapro]

Based on this response, I have no clue what you are saying? Is one better? Which one? Do you have any results that would indicate these findings?

The 14-54 is a far superior lens.. If you search around you can find test reports on the lens.. It easily beat both Nikon and Cannon lenses that cost more than double its price..

I never kept the pics I took with the 14-45 (I borrowed this lens from a friend to do a quick comparison to see if I wanted to pick up a cheap 14-45 and use it underwater and keep the good lens for above water, after comparing pictures taken of the same Items, I decided against picking up the cheap lens..)

The 14.54 is a faster lens and has near perfect results under all tests from full wide to full zoom..

The 7-14 lens that olympus sells is one of the best lenses I have ever tried but unfortunately its over $1500 discounted (at least I have a friend I can borrow it from when I need it)..