riotshield
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #9 · D800 impact damage/cracked frame | |
CanadaMark wrote:
I'm not defending Nikon, but the underlying problem with all these impact damage stores (which probably make up less than 1% of the cameras that pass through their facilities) is that everyone just automatically places the blame on Nikon. The whole thing is hearsay on all sides. The buyer is never going to admit anything, and neither is the courier or anyone else who handled it. I'm not saying that's OK, but that's the way it is.
Put yourself in their shoes - they don't have a clue as to what kind of life the camera had, what happened to it in your possession, the courier's possession, the retail stores possession, on the plane over from Japan, etc. Why should they immediately be responsible for all impact damage claims? How many people do you think have bumped/dropped their cameras and not thought twice about it, or felt guilty and are unwilling to admit it, sending it in hoping Nikon will fix it for free? Or maybe you're not home one day and your kids decide to check out Daddy's professional camera, drop it, and put it away without anyone noticing. Maybe it took a big hit while riding in your carry on luggage when someone smashed their hard roller bag up against it in the overhead bins on a plane. How could Nikon possibly know if these things did or did not happen? There are countless things that could have happened, but in my opinion the couriers are by far the most likely culprit - from automated sorting facilities, drops into sorting bins, and careless drivers there are numerous opportunities for damage.
You can have 4K video footage of yourself packaging the camera up, but that doesn't prove a thing if there is pre-existing internal damage before you send it to Nikon. You may somehow know for sure nothing has ever happened to the camera, at least in your possession, but Nikon has no way of knowing that and they can't just take everyone's word for it. My point is just that these are incredibly complex scenarios, and Nikon denies responsibility for the claims for the exact same reasons the camera owner doesn't think they are responsible either.
And what happens when they see legit impact damage? As soon as they deny it on those grounds, the first thing the camera owner is going to do is come online and make noise about it, even if they are guilty. It's a no-win scenario for Nikon, so they need to draw the line somewhere.
There is also no reliable data regarding how many impact damage claims there have been, especially with relation to how many cameras Nikon services (I would be interested in seeing that for sure). For that data to be reliable, there would also have to be some way of knowing the camera's history, which is impossible. On top of that, you must consider also that disgruntled people are many times more likely to complain on the internet, so you get a highly disproportionate sample just by looking at forums and the like. I don't think this is one for the courts - a $5 lawyer could have this thrown out with the amount of unknown variables at play. That being said, the $100 it may cost you for a law firm's letter to Nikon might get them to repair your specific camera, which is all you really need, so it's a fairly inexpensive gamble.
So again, I am not on anybody's side here, but there are just so many unknown variables that it's pretty difficult to point the finger at anyone with any certainty. It's just a shi*ty situation in general for all involved parties, but I think that A) this does not happen with anywhere near the frequency people think it does, and B) there are far to many unknown variables to accurately place the blame.
My advice is to file a UPS claim, and if that fails, just make an insurance claim, get a D810, and be done with it. If you want to pay a law firm to send a letter, it's probably a fairly inexpensive gamble that might get you what you want, but there is no way you would win you decided to follow it through....Show more →
No doubt there are questionable warranty claims for every product out there, but the way Nikon treats their customers, it's like the default response is cynical skepticism and it's up to the customer to prove they have a valid claim.
I received a little taste of that this week when I called the Nikon Store to return a de-centered lens I received last week. After calling and waiting on hold, I described the problem I was having. After a lengthy wait, rather than being issued an RA # I was transferred to tech support in India.
The tech support started by suggesting my camera was at fault, saying I needed to reset my camera settings and clean my camera contacts. When I explained to him that it was not the camera but the lens that was decentered (my other lenses were fine), he started saying the distortion correction in the camera might be causing it, even though I explained the problem was still visible in uncorrected RAWs. He said I needed to send him sample photos. I sent him RAW files with an explanation as requested but both the upload and e-mail servers rejected them for being too large. I converted them to JPEG via Lightroom with no corrections and re-sent them. He then said he could not accept my files because they were not converted in ViewNX 2.10.2. I re-sent the photos along with a message voicing my displeasure and I finally received my RA #. Of course I had to ship the lens back at my own expense.
Contrast this to the last time I had to return something at the Canon Store. I spoke to one rep who simply asked what was wrong, and then promptly e-mailed me a prepaid return label. I am starting to regret my decision to buy a D610 last week.
|
