Blackmagic Forum

So, I’m not blaming anybody, however I do need to just get this off my chest. I recently purchased a pre-owned, allegedly hardly used, URSA MINI 4.6k ef. I used it virtually a handful of times before suddenly there was an issue with what I have since learned was the sensor. I learned this by sending it in to Blackmagic Design. It has taken a week and a half to get ahold of someone to update me with the following: The camera is unrepairable. There are no b stock versions of this camera to replace it with. The only option I have been given is to purchase a lightly discounted new URSA Pro 4.6 pro or have the camera returned in it’s current state. Again, I am not blaming anyone, there was no warranty, and Blackmagic seems to have attempted to help me out to some extent here, but it has been like pulling teeth to get this response, which is purely devastating. Thousands of dollars were spent on this camera and now it seems I’m stuck between the previous owner who will not acknowledge and fault or issue with the camera and Blackmagic who is trying to sell me. Just needed to vent. Thank you for listening.

Just to update: I have been in contact with support from Blackmagic and essentially what the situation ended up being was: once they had possession of my camera, and determined it “unrepairable,” they then offered me a discounted upgrade, which are, in my understanding almost the same tech specs as the camera I had sent to them, for about 4,800$ before tax. I asked for my camera to be returned to me so that I could return the “unrepairable” camera to the Ebay seller for a partial refund to put toward the discounted upgrade, but was told they would not send the broken product back to me. Is this normal operating procedure for Blackmagic? I am genuinely not trying to be antagonistic, I just have found the customer service of this company to be exceedingly underwhelming, with the exception of one person I have interacted with. I was told these decisions with regard to my specific case were made by “the president of the company.” Is this normal?

They want to prevent people from selling defective gear. So once the unit is deemend defective. Its finished.

Also for them to put the device together again and ship back will cost money which is a company policy not to do with defective products so it seems.

As for products like video mixers, cameras etc. ONLY buy them new!! As only then you have FULL warranty and if the unit breaks within 1/2 years of purchase. You get a replacement.

Isn't not returning your property "theft"?
Surely they have to return your property to you? Even if it is a pile of bits?
I can understand they don't want broken cameras sold but ifthey reimburse you with a mutually agreed amount it is theft?
Unless it is is the small print of the T's and C's when you ticked the T's and C's box without reading it (like the rest of us NEVER do ) that they scrap un reparable cameras.

jamedia wrote:I can understand they don't want broken cameras sold but if they reimburse you with a mutually agreed amount it is theft?

If you got reimbursed with a mutually agreed to amount, then that is called an "Exchange". They exchange your broken piece + some money or equivalent for another item. It's not theft and you got a fair deal.

Ellory Yu wrote:

jamedia wrote:I can understand they don't want broken cameras sold but if they reimburse you with a mutually agreed amount it is theft?

If you got reimbursed with a mutually agreed to amount, then that is called an "Exchange". They exchange your broken piece + some money or equivalent for another item. It's not theft and you got a fair deal.

THE OP said "I asked for my camera to be returned to me so that I could return the “unrepairable” camera to the Ebay seller for a partial refund to put toward the discounted upgrade, but was told they would not send the broken product back to me."

The OP asked for his property to be returned. It wasn't so what do you call that?

jamedia wrote:

Ellory Yu wrote:

jamedia wrote:I can understand they don't want broken cameras sold but if they reimburse you with a mutually agreed amount it is theft?

If you got reimbursed with a mutually agreed to amount, then that is called an "Exchange". They exchange your broken piece + some money or equivalent for another item. It's not theft and you got a fair deal.

THE OP said "I asked for my camera to be returned to me so that I could return the “unrepairable” camera to the Ebay seller for a partial refund to put toward the discounted upgrade, but was told they would not send the broken product back to me."

The OP asked for his property to be returned. It wasn't so what do you call that?

Chris, I don't know the details and just going by what I read being posted here. What is posted here sounds like there was a mutually agreed "exchange". If so, then the broken parts plus money paid becomes the property of BMD and the new camera becomes the new property of the OP. In this case, the OP cannot get his old camera back, parts or in whole. It's simple as that, case close.

On the other hand, if there were no mutual agreement and the money was the only payment for the new camera, then yes he should get his old camera back.

If the OP didn't get a new camera, or no mutual agreement of exchange was made, then he should be able to get his old camera back.

So depending on the circumstance, there can be different outcome. Which of the above circumstance is not so clear by the posting from the OP. So I can only assume with my replies. Sometimes, People need to be straight as an arrow when communicating things out so that nothing is assumed.

awppollock wrote:I asked for my camera to be returned to me so that I could return the “unrepairable” camera to the Ebay seller for a partial refund to put toward the discounted upgrade

To my thinking, you wouldn't be qualified for an "upgrade" if you don't own the camera, so that plan wouldn't work anyway.