Does anyone having Nikon claiming there was impact damage after sending it a member of NPS? I wonder if they treat NPS different or if this is across the board.
I had an opposite experience two years ago, the lens that I received back from Nikon had its frontal element smashed though the shipping box didn't show any signs of damage. I took some images immediately, and emailed them within 15 minutes. Of course, Nikon initially refused to accept it, and insisted the impact damage be caused by me. In the face of an undeniable presence of the time-stamps of the UPS delivery record, image EXIFs and email headers, they eventually fixed the damage for free.
The lady who handles all of our repairs has different shelves for things going to each of the various factory service centers. The one for Nikon has this label:
"Nikon: creating new Canon customers one repair at a time."
In fairness, the Canon shelf says: "Canon Service: Always quick, always polite, often fixed."
You know who's got the best repair service in the universe? Paul Buff and Alien Bees. Today for example we got a light back that we sent in Friday. They fixed it, and also replaced the whole plastic case "because it looked pretty worn" at no charge. They also included a spare bulb and fuse in a little plastic bag.
That kind of thing makes me glad to be their customer. Probably didn't cost them $10 in parts since they had to take off the case to do the repair anyway. But it sure made me feel like they appreciated my business.
What I find strange and interesting is that they are quoting $224 to repair the "impact damage". If I am not mistaken, a "clean and check" is already $224. Assuming the quote is the final price, what are they repairing? The scuffs and scratches on the "evidence of impact damage" photos don't need to be repaired. Any internal focus related parts can't possibly (can it?) be repaired or replaced for the same cost as a "clean and check".
Well, I had a good repair experience a couple years ago...and it was damage due to "Impact". In fact, I told them it was impact damage, because I fell onto the camera and lens...while climbing on an ice formation. $225 later (+ about 10 days) and it was back - looking very spiffy. The outside of my D300 body didn't have a single mark on it after the fall. It just stopped displaying images on the LCD, and was throwing a r06 error on the top lcd...but it kept on shooting.
I also saw decades of pool equipment usage at the newspaper. Seriously, they didn't own a single piece of equipment that didn't have impact damage. Something about "other" people paying for equipment made some photogs less careful with the gear. Point is, I think "impact damage" is far more common than many may believe.
In that time, at the newspaper, I always had good repair experiences with Melville NY. (I never tried anywhere else) I hope this thread is not indicative of a change in Nikon's service ethic.
Nikon Canada told me the mirror almost fell out because the sub-mirror assembly was damaged by impact.
I was shocked! I said to them, the only impact the mirror has seen was that of being flipped up and down about 3000 times. They repaired the mirror for free, but the camera still came back with severe focus problems. They have since replaced it with a new camera. Thankful to get rid of the last lemon. Must have been put together by someone half asleep.
Sad fact is, they tried to blame this on me and get $650 out of for the repair. I didn't get it repaired for free until I fought back!
Chris Langer wrote:
Does anyone having Nikon claiming there was impact damage after sending it a member of NPS? I wonder if they treat NPS different or if this is across the board.
This is craziness. If I ever buy a new camera, I WILL FOR SURE buy the Mack warranty! My buddy bought one for his D7000 for $200 or $300 and he had to send it in to get repaired. They replaced pretty much everything on the camera. It had marks on the body, so Nikon would void the warranty by just looking at it...
RCicala wrote:
"Nikon: creating new Canon customers one repair at a time."
In fairness, the Canon shelf says: "Canon Service: Always quick, always polite, often fixed."
I can't vouch for Nikon, but that's right on the money for Canon in my experience. Apropos to this particular topic, I bought a secondhand 24-105 that was decentered, but under warranty. The repair slip I got back from Canon said this: "Impact damage. Replaced [almost entire lens]. Charge: Warranty repair, $0.00." Surprised the hell out of me.
Interesting. I own Nikon cameras and lenses and (touch wood) have never had a problem.
To contrast these stories I have a pair of Leica binoculars ($1000) which I dropped in my garage with the result that focus was screwed. Got hold of agent in Cape Town, couriered bins to them, they sent to Germany for a quote to repair. Leica replaced all damaged parts, free of charge, and wrote me a great letter hoping that I'd enjoy using their product.
This leads me to wonder on a larger scale that Nikon is bleeding $$$ internally maybe due to floods and what's that thing Nikon CEO said "...rapid deterioration of the market..."
Thus the Impact Damage campaign to cut expenditures. Definitely not like that years ago.
I also feel the same thing, Nikon is having problem right now. Look D600's price, it has deal everywhere and still give away accessories to boost sale. Not to mention the lens deal all over. and the holding feel of D600 is so sad to me.
I returned my D800E for focus problem and I am still holding my D700 right now and D300s used to be, what a lovely camera body. tough like a rock. offer as much as they can at the time of introduce. QC is great. Something bad seems happened during past several years.
even compare 24-70G with latest 1.4 prime. The difference in build is so obvious. Yes, I know sensors are great, but that is from SONY.
Every manufacturer has to deal with warranty costs. The proper way to reduce such costs is to build a better, more durable and reliable product. If that strategy is unworkable, the warranty period can be made shorter.
Under no circumstances should evidence of abuse be fabricated in order to cheat the customer out of legitimate warranty repairs.
If Nikon has decided that the 5 year USA warranty on lenses is causing them to bleed cash, then they should offer a 1 or 2 year warranty and honor the damn thing. Extended warranties -- at cost to the consumer -- could be made available to those who wish to lengthen the warranty period. Again, there should be no reneging on Nikon's part, especially if the customer has forked over additional money for coverage. The words impact damage should vanish from the Nikon lexicon forever unless the equipment has seen the business end of a hammer or baseball bat.
As a pretty bright guy once said, "It's impossible to estimate the cost of a dissatisfied customer."
Howard is right, manufacturers should offer extended warranties to consumers at cost like auto dealers do. Like a policy that covers accidental damage but they really need to step up to the plate on things like this.
You know now that I really think about this mess is that Wayne is now without any warranty on the camera that still has warranty on it as some Nikon repair person says that this supposed damage has voided the warranty, this really sucks. I really hope Nikon factory reads or at least hears about this thread. Over 6500 views shows that at least the people on FM are interested in a mess like this.
