I intentionally bought a used Nikon D 300s from Keh a little over a year ago. I was using a Nikon D 80 before that. I am perfectly happy with the D 300s and if the D 400 ever come out, I will not buy it until it has been out long enough to see any problems with it. I refuse to reward Nikon for their behavior in service and for not bringing out a high end DX camera. How hard would it be to put a D 7100 sensor into a D 300 body and tweak it so that you can get a larger buffer, faster fps, and all the magic buttons and wheels.
I do not support Nikon's decisions and will buy my next camera used. It may not be a Nikon!
If we accept the OP's claim that she did not damage it (and I have no reason to doubt her), and that it was well packed, that suggests it was damaged at Nikon. And yet there is no clear external sign of impact damage.
I'd argue there very well COULD be external signs - the bare metal showing on the casing of the camera.
It's quite possible the camera wasn't *smashed* per se, but merely hit a table or something, maybe while tightly mounted on a ball head. The stress of the plate being screwed in, plus the smack against whatever caused that paint chip (if the chip was caused from impact) could have been enough to crack a frame bend which may or may not be weak.
Initially I do have doubts about users fault or a design issue, but after doing my own analysis and investigation, I can now quite confirmed that there was no impact damage after all. Impact damage requires compression forces which will not caused crackline directions like the 2 pictures shown. Only tension forces will cause those kinds of cracklines, and this can only happens through the tripod mount when the user is hanging the camera upside down with a heavy lens or having a heavy lens mounted on a tripod using the camera's tripod mount.
The finding was that there were 2 screws from the base plate that were tightened to the thin weak section of the chassis that shows the cracks. This section should not affect either the lens mount or the sensor alignments that caused the left focus issue. So Nikon is still responsible for the repair for the left focus issue and should not void the warranty.
The other problem is the chassis breakage which is actually a design issue which Nikon should also take responsibility because they have shaved too much material and weight by leaving too little load allowance for that section that requires to bare all the load of the camera, lens and accessories when it is mounted on the tripod mount.
Unless they have changed the design for the D810, all D8x0/E series will have the potential of this breakage if a heavy lens and accessories are mounted on the camera on a tripod.
I really think that this is a potential class action suit if more data are gathered from ACTUAL users that have this problem.
All one needs to do is to perform a x-ray and UV scan like we do for turbine plates to locate the weak spots or casting flow marks for a number of parts to confirm the potential breakage.
CGrindahl wrote:
What I want to know is WHO took the air out of those eleven footballs…
The coach knows nothing about it. The quarterback knows nothing about it… It must have been impact damage…
It is typically only when the smoking gun has been revealed that those in charge will finally accept responsibility. How many years did executives from the tobacco industry perjure themselves before Congress? How long did GM execs deny that the ignition switch had anything to do with the car stopping, or Toyota execs accept that the floor mats were contributing to accidents? Such is the nature of the business world. If it is possible to deny responsibility and get away with it, it is a very rare executive who will step forward and tell the truth. Sooo, should we expect more from Nikon? Probably not. And as you note, with photographers putting down their DSLR cameras in favor of smartphones, the squeeze is on. I hope Nikon survives. Yet it is certainly true that treating customers poorly is not a good strategy for surviving......Show more →
Well said.
And like the Patriots, Nikon has a dubious history, the D600, although they don't go back as far as NE!
I don't trust Nikon USA to stand behind their products anymore. And as a 35 year Nikon shooter, that's sad.
CGrindahl wrote:
Trust me that is not because I'm so smart but simply because the re-designed grip on the D800 caused my hand to cramp. I used one for a week and happily sent it on to its owner and never gave the camera a second thought. BUT the D700 is an amazing camera, so I have no complaints at all. And I am feeling pretty fortunate at the moment as I read these threads...
Still shooting with my D3.
I like the bigger bodies, the D600-750's feel small in my hands.
I was thinking of moving to the D810, borrowed one with a grip and liked it. Now, with this potential frame issue, I'm not sure.
cputeq wrote:
I'd argue there very well COULD be external signs - the bare metal showing on the casing of the camera.
It's quite possible the camera wasn't *smashed* per se, but merely hit a table or something, maybe while tightly mounted on a ball head. The stress of the plate being screwed in, plus the smack against whatever caused that paint chip (if the chip was caused from impact) could have been enough to crack a frame bend which may or may not be weak.
The photos and Mary's testimony indicate no clear signs. But you are surely right that a bang might not leave obvious external marks.
hans98ko wrote:
Initially I do have doubts about users fault or a design issue, but after doing my own analysis and investigation, I can now quite confirmed that there was no impact damage after all. Impact damage requires compression force which will not cause crackline directions like the 2 pictures shown. Only tension force will cause those kinds of cracklines, and this can only happens through the tripod mount when the user is hanging the camera upside down with a heavy lens or having a heavy lens mounted on a tripod using the camera's tripod mount.
The finding was that there were 2 screws from the base plate that were tightened to the thin weak section of the chassis that shows the cracks. This section should not affect either the lens mount or the sensor alignments that caused the left focus issue. So Nikon is still responsible for the repair for the left focus issue and should not void the warranty.
The other problem is the chassis breakage which is actually a design issue which Nikon should also take responsibility because they have shaved too much material and weight by leaving too little load allowance for that section that requires to bare all the load of the camera, lens and accessories when it is mounted on the tripod mount.
Unless they have changed the design for the D810, all D8x0/E series will have the potential of this breakage if a heavy lens and accessories are mounted on the camera on a tripod.
I really think that this is a potential class action suit if more data are gathered from ACTUAL users that have this problem.
All one needs to do is to perform a x-ray and UV scan like we do for turbine plates to locate the weak spots or casting flow marks for a number of parts to confirm the potential breakage. ...Show more →
In which case you would have to duplicate the failure in a controlled test, to prove the case. Sounds expensive.
hans..good to have your technical engineering input and expertise given. i am back in singapore for the next six months. Nikon Mellville finally fixed my left focus issue two months ago. the latest firmware update last summer took all the micro adjustments done my nikon tech in singapore out. the result was both center focus became front focusing as well as left focus. they corrected the center focus, but could not microadjust the left.
it will be interesting to see if there is in fact a design defect or not, but the question is does nikon tech services have the equipment to ex-ray or uv-scan these chasis for checking bodies?
. i know i have been shooting nikon for almost 45 years, and i always kept the larger lenses as the tripod fulcrum point, and stored the camera separate from large lenses when in the bag. i have have had no problem..just the left focus issue thankfully.
hans..good to have your technical engineering input and expertise given. i am back in singapore for the next six months. Nikon Mellville finally fixed my left focus issue two months ago. the latest firmware update last summer took all the micro adjustments done my nikon tech in singapore out. the result was both center focus became front focusing as well as left focus. they corrected the center focus, but could not microadjust the left.
it will be interesting to see if there is in fact a design defect or not, but the question is does nikon tech services have the equipment to ex-ray or uv-scan these chasis for checking bodies?
. i know i have been shooting nikon for almost 45 years, and i always kept the larger lenses as the tripod fulcrum point, and stored the camera separate from large lenses when in the bag. i have have had no problem..just the left focus issue thankfully.
LeifG wrote:
In which case you would have to duplicate the failure in a controlled test, to prove the case. Sounds expensive.
Yes, it does sound expensive due to the need to use specialized test equipments, but one have to take into consideration that it will not be cheap if a total recall is needed and most companies will try to deny that there was an issue to avoid the cost.
A lot of time we hear people making statements about class action suit, but never considered that to win a case one needs to prepare actual evidences and witnesses before hand.
For high tech companies that perform analysis and casting, they should have these kind of equipments or should know where to have it analyzed for a fees. In the States, UK and here in Singapore should not be a problem. Even one of the companies I worked for have these kind of equipments and I was in charge of that Component Technologies Engineering Department at that time. Operators have to be certified annually and have to wear radiation tags when in the restricted laboratory zone.
nwadventurer7 wrote:
Nikon Mellville finally fixed my left focus issue two months ago.
Hey! Bill
Sure is nice to know that you have your camera fixed even after its warranty period. Like I said always keep your service documentation for reference. It is always good to know users are enjoying their equipments rather than having problems with it.
No, I don't think any service centers in the industry will have those kinds of equipments because they don't come cheap, a table top version for the semiconductor industry for small articles will cost way over half a million dollars. Usually are the R&D departments and the aircraft industry that will own this kinds of equipments. But in it comes with the most expensive industrial camera and lowest distortion lenses that one can find. Also it requires permits to have them installed and definitely not in commercial buildings where most service centers are located.
Regards, Hans
hans98ko wrote:
Initially I do have doubts about users fault or a design issue, but after doing my own analysis and investigation, I can now quite confirmed that there was no impact damage after all. Impact damage requires compression forces which will not caused crackline directions like the 2 pictures shown. Only tension forces will cause those kinds of cracklines, and this can only happens through the tripod mount when the user is hanging the camera upside down with a heavy lens or having a heavy lens mounted on a tripod using the camera's tripod mount.
The finding was that there were 2 screws from the base plate that were tightened to the thin weak section of the chassis that shows the cracks. This section should not affect either the lens mount or the sensor alignments that caused the left focus issue. So Nikon is still responsible for the repair for the left focus issue and should not void the warranty.
The other problem is the chassis breakage which is actually a design issue which Nikon should also take responsibility because they have shaved too much material and weight by leaving too little load allowance for that section that requires to bare all the load of the camera, lens and accessories when it is mounted on the tripod mount.
Unless they have changed the design for the D810, all D8x0/E series will have the potential of this breakage if a heavy lens and accessories are mounted on the camera on a tripod.
I really think that this is a potential class action suit if more data are gathered from ACTUAL users that have this problem.
All one needs to do is to perform a x-ray and UV scan like we do for turbine plates to locate the weak spots or casting flow marks for a number of parts to confirm the potential breakage. ...Show more →
Sorry hans98ko, but your engineering authoritative assessment is pure poppycock, at this point. Have you examined the fracture surfaces to determine whether this was fatigue induced failure, potentially from an initial flaw in the casting, which would leave some initial beach marks, or is the fracture surface uniform to indicate it was a single event that caused the fracture. No photos of the fracture surface have been presented. So far, all we've seen in this thread are two photos of cracked castings from the side, and they're not even in the exact same location of the casting. Did you identify the exact magnesium alloy used in the casting so that you know the exact material properties for your assessment ? Do you know the exact dimensions of the casting, at the locations where failure occurred so that you can precisely calculate the failure stresses? Did you determine the exact g-forces needed to create enough tensile stress at the failure location, so you can definitively say this is a design flaw? Do you know what the design criteria are so that you can definitively state that this design is inadequate? I disagree with your proclamation that an impact loading couldn't have caused that type of fracture. If the transient stresses exceeded the material's ultimate strength, then that type of failure is plausible.
One could state that using a casting at all might not be the best way to go. Castings tend to be more brittle than a machined forging. Casting avoids most of the final machining required to get the initial stock to the finish product. So the choice to go with a casting is purely based on cost, not on superior strength properties.
hans98ko wrote:
The other problem is the chassis breakage which is actually a design issue which Nikon should also take responsibility because they have shaved too much material and weight by leaving too little load allowance for that section that requires to bare all the load of the camera, lens and accessories when it is mounted on the tripod mount.
I'm still not seeing the evidence that you've evaluated that demonstrates this is an obvious design flaw.
Yes, doing some type of NDE on the castings prior to acceptance could cut down on structural integrity issues if there are flaws in the casting due to the manufacturing processes. However, if this is a design issue, e.g., the cross-section of the casting is too small, no amount of NDE will catch that. Only stress analysis or testing can determine that.
I think most of us here are in the OP's corner, and would like this to be resolved fairly, which apparently it has. But I think it is extremely premature to conclude this is an inherent design flaw, and I don't think you've presented any substantive evidence to support your conclusion that it's Nikon's fault.
I have been in this industry for so long that I have been working with many of the leading companies in many fields, not only that I used to run a department in a fortune 100 US MNC that has equipments located around the world to evaluate all kinds of components, be it chemicals, electronics, firmwares, materials, mechanical... etc...for both military and consumer's applications.
Not only that, other companies that are doing business with us also sent in their research and evaluation reports for our approval. So if one have gone through enough of those, one can predict the outcome by comparing previous experiences. And aluminum magnesium alloys casting is one of those. Including Alcoa from the states that supply most of the aluminum magnesium alloys for cruise missiles and airframe constructions. The use of this material requires US government approval for export.
You might not be aware that I have got hold of a couple of the D800/E construction drawings for the related parts to come to the conclusion that there were 2 screws coming from the base plate, as well as the relationship with the lens mount and sensor location.
Also destruction tests are a requirement for all our products before it can be qualified for shipment. So seeing enough of destruction and evaluation reports showing the direction of forces and the damages it can cause gave me the confidence in saying what I am seeing.
As I have mentioned before, for those who have the intention to file a class action suit, they will have to perform their own evaluations to come up with enough evidences, rather than just taking my words.
What I am doing here is to point the way to how they can go about doing it, for I have spent enough time with bunch of corporate lawyers from both sides involved in settling disputes.
film_4ever wrote:
Sorry hans98ko, but your engineering authoritative assessment is pure poppycock, at this point...
It saddens me when folks pull the mine is bigger than yours rhetorical weapon in a conversation. Whether our friend in Singapore is correct or not, it is possible to ask the questions you ask without the dismissive tone which suggests you have a bigger one.
We're curious about this and doubtless will watch as it unfolds, but questioning OPs intention or demeaning those who contribute to the conversation is hardly useful. I like best those threads that don't devolve into rhetorical rugby...
Yes, I would like to know that answer too. Because I was not able to get hold of it's construction drawing at this moment to perform a one to one comparison.
If Nikon has done a major modification around that area than they must have been aware of the problem without admitting it.
Maybe someone is nice enough to sacrifice one of their own to find out.
CGrindahl wrote:
It saddens me when folks pull the mine is bigger than yours rhetorical weapon in a conversation. Whether our friend in Singapore is correct or not, it is possible to ask the questions you ask without the dismissive tone which suggests you have a bigger one.
I think you're reading more into my response than what is there. hans98ko is claiming that he has analyzed the failures and can prove there is a design flaw. I'm merely calling bullshit, because that's all his speculation amounts to. Am I the one pulling out the credentials card?
CGrindahl wrote:
We're curious about this and doubtless will watch as it unfolds, but questioning OPs intention ...
I think you better go back and read my response again before making these baseless claims. If you read a little more carefully this time, I believe you will see that I said "most of us are in the OP's corner "
CGrindahl wrote:
or demeaning those who contribute to the conversation is hardly useful.
Just because I'm calling bullshit, on his analysis and conclusions doesn't mean I'm demeaning him. I hardly consider describing someone's conclusions as "poppycock" demeaning. But I guess we all have different standards.
Ahh, there's the rub... that you believe calling someone on their "bullshit" is in no way demeaning to an individual... unless of course he's a good friend and your normal banter includes such phrases. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable... You don't have to agree with me, but you might wish to reconsider the standards you use in your posting here, unless this is just another site for you to flex your superior analytical muscles. Its your choice.
Calling others "poppycork" or classifying others opinions or suggestions as "bullshit" will not solve the problem.
If you have a better solution or classification then let us all hear it.
Let me give you a couple of examples to make you understand a little better.
1. A good auto mechanic can tell if an engine is misfiring just by the sound of the engine. He can roughly tell if it is caused by a bad spark plug or a distributor cable or cap. All these without having to dismantle the engine.
2. A good electronic engineer can tell if the runners on the PC board are capable of handling a certain current rating just by the look of the copper thickness and the width of the runners. All without having to measure each individual layers and runners.
3. A good mechanical engineer can tell if a certain I-beam or H-beam can handle a certain load without having to use Pro-E to simulate it each time, because he/she has already done them so often. All they need is a final test if they decided to use them.
Now, let me make it more interesting and that is everyone knows that bicycle wheels can never be used on a pickup truck, because they will blow before you can put them on.. All these are basic instinct due to previous experiences.
So, do you call all those people including yourself poppycorks? And their's as well as your opinions bullshit?
I always let time to decide the final outcome rather than fighting over nothing, and if you go through all my posts here, you will find that I was proven correct most of the times though there were a couple of times I was wrong.
CGrindahl wrote:
Ahh, there's the rub... that you believe calling someone on their "bullshit" is in no way demeaning to an individual
For every point, there is a counterpoint. Surely you've been on enough forums to note that even if you claim "water is wet", the "sky is blue", the "sun rises in the east", someone will pop out of the woodwork to claim you are wrong. No, just because I disagree with hans98ko I don't consider it demeaning. I never used the term "bullshit" until I responded to your judgmental charges. Invoking the "bullshit" card is a common phrase on many forums when someone has made an outlandish claim without providing any evidence that their claim is valid. I'm sorry you're unfamiliar with it.
CGrindahl wrote:
... It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable...
I'm really sorry the point of my post went right over your head. It seems you are so offended by my "tone" and you were so quick to find my response disagreeable that my message appears to have completely evaded you. The point of my post was basically to call into question hans98ko's conclusion that the OP's incident was an obvious design flaw. I was merely pointing out many aspects that were still unknown, and that without knowing those answers it is completely premature to be concluding this is a design flaw and we should be throwing Nikon under the bus.
CGrindahl wrote:
You don't have to agree with me, but you might wish to reconsider the standards you use in your posting here, unless this is just another site for you to flex your superior analytical muscles. Its your choice.
I really don't care that in your opinion, my tone and my responses don't fit your standards of decorum regarding this forum. Until I get a message from Fred or one of the moderators telling me that my comments are out of line, I will continue to call people on the carpet when they are making outlandish claims that are totally unsubstantiated. Whether that bothers you or anyone else.
