Disclosure first: I really enjoy Thom's writing and it's one of my bookmarked sites I check regularly.
That being said I can totally understand holding some things back -- not because of any plot, and not from a nondisclosure, but simply because the internet is what it is.
I did it a couple of weeks ago: I compared two lenses but won't post the results until I have a chance to compare more copies.
I know if I post "in a limited evaluation with only one copy it somewhat seems that A might be better than B, but I'm not certain until I test more" then 3 hours later there will be a screaming post on Forum X "Roger says A is a gazillion time better than B ever dreamed of being and anyone who shoots B is an idiot".
Nikon's refusal to release updated drivers for their Coolscan scanners for Windows 7 was enough to convince me to stay away from them. Luckily smart people on the internet figured out workarounds.
Zebrabot wrote:
demanding a receipt for something clearly under warranty is always cheap and a dick move by the manufacturer.
Generally speaking, I disagree. Nikon is trying to ensure the products were delivered through authorized channels, among other things. There are lots of reasonable reasons for requiring a receipt, especially if their policy is the warranty isn't transferable (that policy isn't unique to them).
It should be handled more gracefully, and in this case, handled without question IMHO.
cynerjist wrote:
Haha we can agree on Rockwell not entering the fray. I don't know you but sense from your response that you may work in an engineering field, conduct experiments and data analysis, and write technical documents as I used to. This perspective is largely what is shaping my view given the fact he is collecting data, but is attempting to describe everything anecdotally without presenting the actual data. You made good points for why he might not be sharing. .
It's worse than you think - I'm a marketing guy
(But with a lot of years around development and engineering guys)
cynerjist wrote:
I agree that Thom is extremely knowledgeable and capable. This is precisely why I am frustrated and wrote what I did about his D800 coverage. He is a bright guy, but he wanders in different directions with the commentary. That can certainly be interesting as he is able to connect many distant topics. That said, I think he clearly possesses a rigorous approach to these type of matters, and could more carefully construct the content he posts given his impact factor and own comments about how this whole issue demands the utmost care to observe. I am less interested in the "people in over their heads" type of commentary, and more interested in the knowledge he can share with D800 owners/observers that are able to keep up.
He mentioned at one point having statistically significant information, but probably worries about the poll data due to people not controlling the test properly. I think he has seen enough test shots from the emails, is able to ascertain test quality, and could put something together on that basis. Maybe I do not appreciate how much time he spends helping people via email, and how every mention of the d800 increases his burden. However, nobody is better positioned to reveal the scope than Thom at this point given Nikon culture. At a minimum, we could know the magnitude of the number of affected models he has seen.
I think he has more he could share. It is his right to withhold information as he sees fit. However, I want to be clear that he is taking the lid off of these boxes by using terms like statistically significant and said he is seeing "other issues" than left AF but not elaborating. In my opinion he should not be so ambiguous, mention anonymous sources -- just state products may be coming soon, and he should steer clear of financial analysis as he is way out of his domain there. In turn, I will stay out of his domain and refrain from further comment on his blog. He deserves credit for the many things he has done right.
M635_Guy wrote:
Generally speaking, I disagree. Nikon is trying to ensure the products were delivered through authorized channels, among other things.
That's utter BS, since Nikon USA knows if the camera was sold through their US distribution channel or not, just from the serial number.
It's just a shameful practice to try to reduce the costs of repairing defective products, which they wouldn't have to worry about in the first place if they had a quality control program in place.
Canon is the same way. Try getting a canon product repaired with a receipt not in your name or Grey market cheaper options.
molson wrote:
That's utter BS, since Nikon USA knows if the camera was sold through their US distribution channel or not, just from the serial number.
It's just a shameful practice to try to reduce the costs of repairing defective products, which they wouldn't have to worry about in the first place if they had a quality control program in place.
Steve Beck wrote:
Canon is the same way. Try getting a canon product repaired with a receipt not in your name or Grey market cheaper options.
I disagree. Recently I sent my 7d for service @ Canon Canada. It was out of warranty. To top it off camera was bought in the US. They discovered a scratch on the focusing screen (I caused it). They replaced for free. Upon receiving the camera, there was a dent on the VF housing. Called them and sent in photos. They covered all shipping and replaced the entire body chassis. No fuss no muss. I am not a CPS member.
Products these days are so similar these days. Nikon, Canon, Sony etc... To me what sets a company apart is how it treats its customers. I work with a few suppliers in my portrait business. The ones that I stick with are the ones that have impeccable customer service.
I heard Nikon Canada is pretty good too based on my friend's experience. So this may be down to individual CSR or location. Always send in purchase receipt irregardless.
That's utter BS, since Nikon USA knows if the camera was sold through their US distribution channel or not, just from the serial number.
And you know this how
As a guy who has worked in the tech industry for twenty years and have some awareness for how the distribution and other channels work, I'm guessing I know a little more than you do.
More than likely, they don't know down to the serial number what retailer sold which particular camera and (more importantly) when and to whom. I'm only guessing, but they obviously have concerns that some retailers might be feeding unauthorized selling channels or selling in potentially improper ways (which is why other companies I know more about are so fussy about receipts).
Warranty starts the day it is sold to the actual customer (not the manufacturing date), and in Nikon's case only to the original purchaser, so they want to verify that information.
Whether I like it or not is a different question, but it isn't an astoundingly unique practice, nor is it a surprise to most of us. I wish their on-line registration was actually connected to their warranty database - I think it is mainly used for marketing purposes, which is fairly useless to the customer. None of that rises to the level of "BS" or "shameful" to me...
molson wrote:
It's just a shameful practice to try to reduce the costs of repairing defective products, which they wouldn't have to worry about in the first place if they had a quality control program in place.
I agree that a non-transferable warranty is a way to reduce warranty expense, but in addition the the comment above, it is probably a way to give additional inventive to buy from their authorized resellers vs. used. If the money is close, I'm buying a new one. (The same sort of logic is applied to their refurbs - you get a discount, but a short warranty).
Their quality control isn't going to test every focus point on every camera. The complexity and volume of these products requires a different approach than "test every one", and clearly they had an issue. Not as big a problem as the internet thinks (have a quick read of Thom Hogan's latest article), but certainly a serious problem that they are handing very poorly. Ultimately, I think they'll fix any D800 proven to have the issue whether there is a receipt or not.
This isn't heading for a constructive discussion, so I'm bowing out of the thread.
M635_Guy wrote:
Generally speaking, I disagree. Nikon is trying to ensure the products were delivered through authorized channels, among other things. There are lots of reasonable reasons for requiring a receipt, especially if their policy is the warranty isn't transferable (that policy isn't unique to them).
It should be handled more gracefully, and in this case, handled without question IMHO.
"authorized channels" means artificially bloated American prices. Nikon, Mamiya and drug companies are notorious for garbage like this.
There are no reasonable reasons for requiring a receipt except to determine when something was purchased. Any other reasons and excuses are corporate-talk nonsense.
