sjms wrote:
at $580 I kinda doubt they are going to straighten it. more like R&R the system board that contains the combined slots and control circuitry.
No doubt. I wouldn't blink at $200 ish, but I can use the XQD slot happily if I decide to straighten it myself then alls good.
onimod wrote:
I'm a bit confused.
Is there not actually impact damage clearly visible in the photos?
Maybe it's a misunderstanding about what "impact damage" means to Nikon?
What they mean is "not normal wear and tear".
I agree - I think "Impact Damage" is a bad label for a broader kind of external damage the camera has been subjected to - I don't know what exactly happened to the OP's camera (crushed in the bag, owner inadvertently leaned against a wall with the camera/lens in between, etc.) but SOMETHING happened to the camera. I think people are getting too focused on the word "impact"
BenV wrote:
Nikon is hurting right now and trying to leech all the money they can from customers.
The fact that you resorted to literally criminal activity leaves you little room to criticize...
I recently got the impact damage quote from Autorized Photo Repair $460. I said no and when it came back. I could see the things that could have been done to my 70-200 but they were more to do with light cosmetic marks near the threads where filters are installed. They also said I need a new bayonet because there was too much play. Right away when I got my lens back I checked everything. My 6 month old 70-200 showed to have a very small amount of play; play that was almost hard to recognize. It focused perfectly with a -19 fine tune yet they said focusing mechanism needed repair. I also found no problem installing filters. They said they had problems putting filters on. In the end, I found absolutely nothing wrong with this lens and it has been going strong ever since. I wanted to post this because it shocked me that APR quoted me $460 for all of what I mentioned above and none of it was required nor affected my ability to use the lens. All I asked for was a fine tune that would improve over my -19. This is why I sent the D800 in with it. My request was never addressed. All I got was an impact/compression damage bill for $460. I've been seriously considering sending it in under warranty for the same request to see what Nikon does. But right now I'm pissed. For almost 3 weeks now I can't get Nikon to help me with my Capture NX2 not opening on my Lenovo Thinkbook 520. I have another 70-200 brand new and after fine tuning it came to be -19 as well. It was a tad more snug but not by much. So I've covered my self as much as I can but I'm not even sure I want to waste shipping on sending it in again? Could it be that my two 70-200's could be the exact same but one gets an impact compression damage and a request to replace the focusing mechanism. There is a lot I could do here and wondered what everyone thought? I could send in the brand new one not even used just fine tuned and see if more adjustment could be made. Then see how they respond, same with my slightly used one well under a year of use. It really bothers me that I have to even write this. I'm also really bummed regarding how APR handled things. I suppose there could be something internally that I don't comprehend but I don't trust APR or Nikon.
Christian S wrote:
I recently got the impact damage quote from Autorized Photo Repair $460. I said no and when it came back. I could see the things that could have been done to my 70-200 but they were more to do with light cosmetic marks near the threads where filters are installed. They also said I need a new bayonet because there was too much play. Right away when I got my lens back I checked everything. My 6 month old 70-200 showed to have a very small amount of play; play that was almost hard to recognize. It focused perfectly with a -19 fine tune yet they said focusing mechanism needed repair. I also found no problem installing filters. They said they had problems putting filters on. In the end, I found absolutely nothing wrong with this lens and it has been going strong ever since. I wanted to post this because it shocked me that APR quoted me $460 for all of what I mentioned above and none of it was required nor affected my ability to use the lens. All I asked for was a fine tune that would improve over my -19. This is why I sent the D800 in with it. My request was never addressed. All I got was an impact/compression damage bill for $460. I've been seriously considering sending it in under warranty for the same request to see what Nikon does. But right now I'm pissed. For almost 3 weeks now I can't get Nikon to help me with my Capture NX2 not opening on my Lenovo Thinkbook 520. I have another 70-200 brand new and after fine tuning it came to be -19 as well. It was a tad more snug but not by much. So I've covered my self as much as I can but I'm not even sure I want to waste shipping on sending it in again? Could it be that my two 70-200's could be the exact same but one gets an impact compression damage and a request to replace the focusing mechanism. There is a lot I could do here and wondered what everyone thought? I could send in the brand new one not even used just fine tuned and see if more adjustment could be made. Then see how they respond, same with my slightly used one well under a year of use. It really bothers me that I have to even write this. I'm also really bummed regarding how APR handled things. I suppose there could be something internally that I don't comprehend but I don't trust APR or Nikon. ...Show more →
I'll bet you anything if you sent in a new one they would claim impact damage. These camera's must be made of tin foil.
Good grief, if I were in your shoes, I wonder if I wouldn't just sell the non-functioning gear either for parts or describe it as "possibly repairable", save up and then buy a 5d Mk III.
You're suggesting I take a huge loss on something that isn't my problem? Sorry but I'm not so easy to throw around a thousand (or greater) dollars as you are apparently.
I don't know about that. that's the same reason I went from C to N. it was its relatively failure rate w/o "impact damage" on the 1Ds and 1Ds2 and bravado on "AF that couldn't" on the 1D3.
so far the only component I have returned to Nikon was my sb700 and that was a warranty job w/o issue.
I do work with my gear not hobby so it sees quite a bit of use in many environments.
I have never had a good experience with Nikon service. When you speak with them over the phone you feel disconnected. I wish Nikon service had a live view from the service tech to the customer. Smart phones make it possible. Hey, wait a minute, maybe Nikon should hire me as the VP of "Live View Service." Yes, that is the answer. Even if you are not available to Live View the service, it could be recorded and sent to your computer or smart phone or stored on the web/cloud under your work order number. This would solve myriad service issues and garner Nikon great service "pub." Just my opinion.
Waste the tech's time, cost the company money as I hear a good technician is hard to find. You would also be "learning all of their repair secrets". Maybe it takes ten minutes to fix the problem and the bill is $750.
They won't just do a CLA and return the camera without doing the CF bent pin. Apparently having a bent pin also means my 2 year warranty is voided. So I either get it back without them giving it a tune up or pay $600 for them to give it a tune up & repair the bent pin...sigh.
We have plenty of nikon kit but man I am thinking of moving it, that is crazy. The other D4 has a scratch on it that'll = impact damage for sure!
EDIT - Richard just called me back, said they'll do everything except the pin...finally some sanity.
And...get a new estimate....they still want to charge $550 for a standard CLA.
I was under the impression sending it in to ensure the AF was spot on, fixing the on/off button so it isn't sticky, hot pixel mapping & a general clean & lube was covered under warranty (at least for the first visit)?
I used to think of Nikons as the camera PJs take into the jungles of Vietnam; covered in mud, 3 bodies with different lenses hanging off their neck, jumping out of helicopters into foxholes under fire.
Did Nikon change the material they use to make their lens mount (oops, sorry Roger, bayonet mount)? Are they made out of jell-o? Are the current Nikon bodies studio cameras not meant to be taken into the sun?
MikeW wrote:
oh yay....now I am getting the "impact damage" bent mount pics to boot!....FFS this is crazy, I just told them to check the focus...lolz
Warranty..... There is no stinking warranty. When you feel caged into unreasonable expense it changes
the consumers attitude towar the way they buy the product. This case has been building for a while now. I was blown away when APR pulled the same thing. I don't get it. I do know there are plenty of us who have gone down this road and are fed up.
williamkazak wrote:
Waste the tech's time, cost the company money as I hear a good technician is hard to find. You would also be "learning all of their repair secrets". Maybe it takes ten minutes to fix the problem and the bill is $750.
Then I don't think you'd like what I charge for what I do in my professions. But I am available 24/7 and you are responsible for putting me in place at your chosen location.
I took images of my camera before sending it in, the image they showed of just the bayonnet metal doesn't look like mine. It is inconclusive but the image they sent doesn't show a mark I have on my images.
Stating my frustration & thoughts of switching cames Richard just said that is collateral damage...lol
I can give you his number or email if you like
See the mark on the left side midway between the 2 holes (a small mark I know), I can't see it in their image - I think they just have images they give all the suckers...
