Mark, buddy, I get where you're coming from and I am to the bone a benefit-of-the-doubt sort of guy, but Nikon made a very muddy bed for themselves with their handling of the D600 issue and while the backlash of suspicions may in fact be excessive, unfortunately Nikon richly earned it - and ultimately, whether because they are denying legitimate claims or simply because we have such good reason to be wary, some Nikonians feel a bit screwed over.
Rightfully so.
Seems to me at the least a consumer should have the peace of mind of good faith in companies they patronize and depend upon. Trust counts.
What bothers me the most (aside from the frames cracking on their "Pro" cameras with no exterior damage) is that they see fit to *void the warranty.*
Through normal wear and tear, something breaks inside the camera, and the company says, hey, you no longer deserve a warranty. You can't be trusted to sufficiently baby your $3000 pro-level camera. Warranties are only for people whose cameras do not develop an internal crack (most likely due to poor engineering.)
WTF?
It would be excellent if you could obtain the written testimony of an engineering expert that the camera could not have suffered the specified internal frame damage without severe and noticeable outside damage as well. Then elevate the issue at Nikon. Hopefully, someone at Nikon service will realize that their original impact claim cannot be supported.
while I love the look of those D810 files I keep reading threads like this that remind me why I bailed on Nikon last year having my own impact damage on a CLA visit...collateral damage was what I was when I protested the claim...
Now I just need canon to bring out a camera where you can lift the shadows a lil...just a lil
ronno wrote:
What bothers me the most (aside from the frames cracking on their "Pro" cameras with no exterior damage) is that they see fit to *void the warranty.*
Through normal wear and tear, something breaks inside the camera, and the company says, hey, you no longer deserve a warranty. You can't be trusted to sufficiently baby your $3000 pro-level camera. Warranties are only for people whose cameras do not develop an internal crack (most likely due to poor engineering.)
WTF?
Nikon isn't alone in this regard.
Load a custom engine tune in your vehicle or modify some essential hardware? Probably just voided your entire warranty.
The manufacturer has no idea what you've (supposedly) done to your stuff, therefore why should they be liable for further repairs on it when something else could wrong down the road (presumably from your modifications or mistreatment)?
It's a simple logic / money thing -- otherwise, manufacturers would be paying for "warranty" repair because they mistuned their engine and blew it up, or didn't blow up the engine but now the transmission is shredded from over-tuning.
Same thing with cameras - Nikon assumes (wrongfully or otherwise) that the camera has been mistreated to the extent that the frame has cracked. So they're not going to repair the frame - but other resulting functions could fail because of this "mistreatment" and they shouldn't be held liable for the repair, either.
Keith B. wrote:
It would be excellent if you could obtain the written testimony of an engineering expert that the camera could not have suffered the specified internal frame damage without severe and noticeable outside damage as well. .
But would not require you to find an engineer that was willing to lie?
There are many was to subject a camera body to excess G force without impacting the camera. Just tip a tripod over and let it, the tripod, impact a log when it falls. Camera did not hit anything, but it was attached at the end of that lever, the tripod, which increases the G force.
Bottom line is this is not simply something that happens ONLY when you drop a camera on the pavement.
Many important parts of the D800/D800E have been designed to achieve better durability and lighter weight. The result is a camera approx. 10% lighter than the D700, yet just as rugged. A magnesium alloy construction protects the sophisticated technologies against accidental shock, and weather and dust sealing has been extensively applied and severely tested, making the D800/D800E as reliable on the road as it is in the studio.
So they receive a camera for warranty repair that has little/no external damage, but part of the internal frame breaks. They void the warranty for impact damage even though the D800 is marketed as being 'rugged' and constructed to protect against accidental shock. There's something called an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose that may apply, and the local state attorney general or the FTC might agree.
Thank you for your input, everyone. I'm still waiting to hear back from Nikon.
Re: "Load a custom engine tune in your vehicle or modify some essential hardware? Probably just voided your entire warranty"
That's apples and oranges. I never modified my camera or did anything that could be remotely compared with loading a custom engine. Sure, I switch out lenses (all Nikon), but surely you don't mean that. The only thing I did that could be remotely considered "modifying" is to switch out my eyepiece for a Nikon DK-17M. Again, a Nikon product and if it's use could be grounds for voiding a warranty, they wouldn't be selling them. I have never opened up my camera and wouldn't even know where to begin. And I think Nikon would probably be able to tell if I did, and certainly they'd be able to tell if I "modified my engine" in any way, and they would be absolutely justified in avoiding my warranty if that were the case. What's happening here isn't remotely similar to modifying the engine of a car.
A more reasonable and comparable car analogy: If I were to buy a brand new car, made no modifications or changes to the engine. Suddenly the car isn't running properly. No bangs or dents, no signs of abuse or of it being smashed into a tree, everything pretty much in the identical condition as it was the day I bought it, but the frame is cracked in half. Again, without any signs of abuse anywhere else on the car, inside or out, I can't imagine the car manufacturer voiding the warranty claiming impact damage.
MaryO wrote:
Thank you for your input, everyone. I'm still waiting to hear back from Nikon.
Re: "Load a custom engine tune in your vehicle or modify some essential hardware? Probably just voided your entire warranty"
That's apples and oranges.
You misunderstood my rather obtuse analogy I wasn't referring to similar behaviors of the consumers, but similar behavior of the manufacturers.
Both companies assume through some behavior that the customer has damaged their product to such an extent that not only will they not cover the "user damage" but they also void the entire warranty because they assume any OTHER damage is going to be related to the original behavior.
I just heard back from Nikon. On Tuesday, I spoke with a supervisor, John, who told me he would have to speak with his superiors and he would get back with me on Wednesday. By 3:30 on Wednesday after not hearing from them, I called and left a message for John to please return my call. He just called me back, asking "how can I help you?" I wondered if he had already forgotten, but reminded him of why he said he would call me back. He told me that his superior had sent me an email yesterday. I checked my email box while on the phone, and no email. He forwarded it to me while I was on the phone and I skimmed through it quickly, but wasn't really happy about it and asked that his superior call me. I am going to post the email below, but I would like to hear thoughts on it. Does it seem reasonable?
First, I realized that although I posted a photo of the cracked frame, I did not post photos of the scuffs; their evidence of my abuse.. here it is... proof that I have been abusing my camera, or (to quote Nikon), proof that "Something significant occurred at least one time to result in this damage". .. please be the judge:
I was asked to contact you regarding your D800. I believe additional information provided in this email along with images of the condition your equipment was received in will be very helpful in answering your questions.
As the provided pictures show, and it is attached here for reference, there is evidence of impact damage. This damage is not the fault of the product or of manufacturing. not related to a previous service and is not covered by warranty. Something significant occurred at least one time to result in this damage. The camera was returned to you as beyond repair due to the damage found. Nikon does not attempt to assess blame for such damage. We can only note that it occurred and let you know what was found. After checking further into this for you, I have found that the camera can be repaired, if you would like. The repair cost would be $636.20. If you would like to proceed with the repair, I have attached a prepaid label to my attention so that I can help expedite this for you. Please let me know if you will be sending it to my attention so that I can assist you with this.
Regards,
Nikon Support
*note: There were no photos attached, so I took one myself (above). I had posted a photo of the internal frame crack earlier on.
I wonder why Nikon told me numerous times that it was beyond repair, which would have meant me having to reinvest $3k, but now they remember that it can be repaired? But not within warranty because of the abuse? "something significant occurred at least one time" by those two tiny scuff marks?
I just heard back from Nikon. On Tuesday, I spoke with a supervisor, John, who told me he would have to speak with his superiors and he would get back with me on Wednesday. By 3:30 on Wednesday after not hearing from them, I called and left a message for John to please return my call. He just called me back, asking "how can I help you?" I wondered if he had already forgotten, but reminded him of why he said he would call me back. He told me that his superior had sent me an email yesterday. I checked my email box while on the phone, and no email. He forwarded it to me while I was on the phone and I skimmed through it quickly, but wasn't really happy about it and asked that his superior call me. I am going to post the email below, but I would like to hear thoughts on it. Does it seem reasonable?
First, I realized that although I posted a photo of the cracked frame, I did not post photos of the scuffs; their evidence of my abuse.. here it is... proof that I have been abusing my camera, or (to quote Nikon), proof that "Something significant occurred at least one time to result in this damage". .. please be the judge:
Those photos prove you only have yourself to blame. You should have left the camera in the original box, where it would have been safe. Silly you. (That was irony, some people might miss that.)
I read a lot of complaints about Nikon US, Nikon UK seem okay. I wonder how many people have this issue?
Mary, I would politely ask them one more time to reconsider their position on the matter, stating that the scuff marks on the bottom are superficial and typical of regular use and not indicative of impact damage. If they refuse I would tell them you are considering hiring an attorney to represent you on the matter and to reconsider their position one last time. If they still refuse I would hire an attorney; you might consider the firm that did the D600 class-action suit. That will serve to get Nikon's attention plus the firm might do it on contingency and not charge you anything. If Nikon keeps doing this they are eventually going to face another class-action lawsuit. And they will lose.
I agree, snapsy.. Because if I paid the $636 they're asking for, it would be a total investment of $3600+ for a camera that not only is the model known for focus issues and weak frames, but this specific camera has had both issues. And no, I did not cause them.
LeifG: You will be happy to know that I have returned it safely to it's box
I suppose looking at the location of the scuff marks it could be construed that the camera bumped something while attached to a tripod and cracked the frame.
However, given their marketing "A magnesium alloy construction protects the sophisticated technologies against accidental shock, and weather and dust sealing has been extensively applied and severely tested, making the D800/D800E as reliable on the road as it is in the studio" as pointed out by riotshield. And given the lack of severity of the scuff marks, I believe if I were Nikon I would have repaired this one quietly.
I feel you have a legitimate gripe and hope that Nikon reconsiders their position.
Not to go with Nikon or against Mary here (I'm no fan of Nikon service), but it *is* quite possible to hit a camera rather hard on a firm surface and only leave minimal exterior damage. So, Mary's photo really only proves either something hit/rubbed against the camera, or the camera itself hit something during a fall....doesn't really prove how hard the fall was, though a cracked frame internally means it was hard enough.....to crack the frame!!!! Case solved
A magnesium alloy construction protects the sophisticated technologies against accidental shock
Silly person! They meant lightning strikes or when you pee on an electric fence!
