James R wrote:
What would this class action cover? The oil on the D600 sensor? Or, Nikon's poor customer service? Many have reported returning the camera due to the oil and many have sent it into Nikon for service. Not much of a class action suit IMO. I do believe their CS seems to be hitting bottom. I hope Nikon will turn that division over to a more innovative leader who will re-access every aspect of its operation. I wonder if it would be better to get these complaints off the web and into the hands of Nikon's upper management?
I would start with their practice of refusing warranty service for specious to claims of "impact damage". If discovery during a class action were to reveal that Nikon does this on a systematic basis then that would constitute warranty fraud, which would have implications beyond a civil suit. But all the other stuff (oil, left AF issue) is certainly worth of class action suit - companies are sued all the time for defective products, especially companies that refuse to come clean about the defects until compelled to.
Hardcore wrote:
I thought that excuse was only used by Nikon Canada.
No, that happens with Nikon Germany also.
I'm working for a newspaper that has their photographers gear serviced at Nikon Düsseldorf and talked to our person who is responsible for repairs. He says, Nikon claims impact damage regularly (on our D3 and D300 cameras and pro lenses).
Personally, I experienced it with one of my own lenses which I definitely never dropped or severely knocked.
So this unfriendly behaviour may originate from an order from Nikon Japan.
To what effect? Most class action settlements result in the lawyers getting all the money and the plaintiffs getting something of minimal value (like a coupon for $5 off a sensor cleaning).
brunobarolo wrote:
So this unfriendly behaviour may originate from an order from Nikon Japan.
Sounds like Germany and the States have it rough, but the situation is quite the opposite here. Took my D80, D90, D700, and several lenses to Nikon in Shinjuku over the last couple years and have always gotten same day service, mostly for free, and without even question of where/when I made my purchases. Sad that Nikon USA/Germany can't replicate the fantastic service of Nikon Japan.
Ho1972 wrote:
To what effect? Most class action settlements result in the lawyers getting all the money and the plaintiffs getting something of minimal value (like a coupon for $5 off a sensor cleaning).
Exactly...on top of that any successful class action suit would take years to be completed. And if Nikon loses, they would appeal the judgement which would add additional years to the class action suit. In reality the situation benefits the lawyers who get paid their fees during the entire process.
As others have said, you cant have a class action suit on something like this...on what grounds?? They suck as a company?? The only way is that if they claimed impact damage, refused to honor warranty to like 500 people, and if ALL those people refused, and then took the camera to ANOTHER shop like APS or Southern Photo, and in EVERY case, the authorized repair center found out there wasnt impact damage, and Nikon had just been lying to avoid free repairs...it wont happen...and then have APS or Southern Photo testify against Nikon, which i HIGHLY doubt they would, cause nikon would just pull their authorization, and not sell parts, and they'd lose tons of business...
traylorc wrote:
Exactly...on top of that any successful class action suit would take years to be completed. And if Nikon loses, they would appeal the judgement which would add additional years to the class action suit. In reality the situation benefits the lawyers who get paid their fees during the entire process.
The principal benefit is to establish a disincentive for the behavior in the future. Even if the lawyers get rich, we get only a $50 coupon toward a future purchase, but Nikon changes their behavior and starts being proactive on issues and honoring their warranties then I would consider that outcome a win.
NathanHamler wrote:
As others have said, you cant have a class action suit on something like this...on what grounds?? They suck as a company?? The only way is that if they claimed impact damage, refused to honor warranty to like 500 people, and if ALL those people refused, and then took the camera to ANOTHER shop like APS or Southern Photo, and in EVERY case, the authorized repair center found out there wasnt impact damage, and Nikon had just been lying to avoid free repairs...it wont happen...and then have APS or Southern Photo testify against Nikon, which i HIGHLY doubt they would, cause nikon would just pull their authorization, and not sell parts, and they'd lose tons of business......Show more →
This assumes the only outcome of class actions is a full trial and verdict. Many suits end in a settlement without the plaintiffs having to prove their case.
snapsy wrote:
This assumes the only outcome of class actions is a full trial and verdict. Many suits end in a settlement without the plaintiffs having to prove their case.
brunobarolo wrote
Personally, I experienced it with one of my own lenses which I definitely never dropped or severely knocked.
So this unfriendly behaviour may originate from an order from Nikon Japan.
Yup. Me too.
I sent back a 17-55 to Nikon Canada that had the zoom rubber hanging off. I got a quote back saying they wanted to replace half the lens and a quote for a ton of cash!
They claimed impact damage when the lens was NEVER dropped while in my possession and i purchased the lens new.
I got nowhere with Nikon Canada at first so I asked to speak with the local rep who claimed he didn't have time out of his busy schedule to speak with me. I replied with an email CC'ing my Nikon dealer and the rep stating if the Nikon rep didn't have time to speak with me i would not continue to purchase $4-5K in Nikon gear each year. I got a phone call i wanted within a few minutes.
Nikon Canada did repair whatever the hell was wrong with the lens free of charge. Funny thing is that lens was always soooo freaking sharp!
Putting this class action stuff aside: I would contact a service company not associated with Nikon and find out their position on this type of contact impact on AF. Do you use a UV filter? If so, not sure how this type of damage (as indicated by Nikon) could happen. My version II has taken a few "impacts" and not a single problem. I would not accept their evidence. I would counter that you always keep a UV filter on the camera and don't recall a single hard impact on the lens or camera body. Also, I would ask exactly how this alleged impact caused problems with the AF.
On the other end of things, maybe it takes a hard impact to leave an imprint on the rubber tip. Also, the noted damage might actually damage a AF capabilities. This may not be Nikon's problem and all this uproar was misplaced. I admit to never having taken a lens apart.
M635_Guy wrote:
Honestly, I'm struggling to see the scuff. Crazy...
With all these claims of impact damage, is Nikon admitting their products are so poorly designed and manufactured that simply putting the product in a camera bag can cause damage?
Maybe I am still on my 1st cup of coffee. Where's the impact damage on the picture? Is it hidden underneath the sticker?
Not sure about consumer electronics. But in the automotive world there is such thing as the Lemon Law. Customer Service sucks doesn't apply unfortunately.
Can't say Nikon Canada is dropping the ball yet. The office is nearby too!
