You told me so!

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Beach Bum
Senior MemberPosts: 1,055
Like?
Nikon isn't a luxury brand :rolls eyes:
In reply to Robin Casady, Mar 2, 2013

Robin Casady wrote:

Midwest wrote:

Robin Casady wrote:

Midwest wrote:

Winerbean wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

I would still be peaved about paying $2000 for something that doesn't work perfectly. Of course, the $8000 figure is bologna in 2013, as full frames now go routinely for about $2500, give or take. I'd rather pay the extra few hundred and get something perfect.

p.s. Nikon should take a hit because of their persistent QC issues.

Thanks Beach Bum, I thought I was alone on this one. The only other way to do this is to warn the customer that if you buy model A you only get 50% quality control but if you buy the more expensive model B you get 100% of our attention!

You're not alone on this point of view. I'm not a Nikon owner (well no DSLR's of theirs) but that is how I feel about anything I buy.

Giving a company your money so they can look down their nose at you is not right and should it be expected nor accepted.

So, do you all spend the extra $$ and drive a Rolls Royce, or do you buy a cheaper car and put up with the recalls and manufacturing defects?

Nikon may not be 'Rolls Royce' but they're sure at least BMW or Lexus territory, aren't they? If someone wants to put up with recalls and mfg defects they can buy a cheap camera at a discount store. My (non-Nikon) dslr cost a lot less than $2000 and I've had to put up with neither recalls nor defects.

As was pointed out, BMW has been very Nikonesque with problems in their cars. I had a an Acura for awhile. It had some initial QC problems. A sunroof drain tube was not properly installed so when it rained, water came down the A-pillar and flooded the passenger floor. There were other problems as well. Initially, customer support was very good at the Acura dealership, but when the Service Manager left, the quality went with him.

But suppose you buy the lower-priced Rolls Royce, do you put up with being treated second class for not buying the higher-priced model?

You mean the $250,000 Ghost, rather than the $400,000 Phantom? LOL.

How much is enough to spend to get proper customer service?

Depends what you are getting. $30,000 for a camera should get you lots of great CS. $2,000 puts you right there with your medium priced GM cars of several decades ago.

At what price levels does one only deserve crappy service?

You've turned the comment on its head. The point is that being outraged at typical corporate customer service is not realistic for a camera as sophisticated as the D600 that costs only $2,000.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
— Bertrand Russell

I have to give you credit for coming up with a novel argument, but it hardly stands up to scrutiny or even really 10 seconds of rational thought.

I buy A LOT of cameras, largely in the "lower end" segment of the market, not because I'm cheap but because these cameras have features that high end cameras don't, such as long zooms, image stabilization, etc. That's not to say that I don't buy high end gear as well, but I have interest in the full range of cameras available.

And I do as much research on these cameras as anyone else out there. I just want the best gear, and, to date, I have yet to consider a Nikon the best camera for the job. I've often found them deficient in one aspect or another, often more than one. Perhaps things would be different if I were in the market for a full frame, but Nikon simply doesn't make good cameras with anything less than an APS sized sensor.

My point is that if Nikon were really as good as you claim, I would have objectively found evidence that their camera's (e.g. travel zooms, bridge cameras, rugged compacts, camcorders) were better than other manufacturers. The fact is that in all of these compact categories, they're almost always in 4th place or lower for functionality.

The fact of the matter is I'm not cheap. I'd pay more if someone actually delivered more. I always buy what I perceive to be the best in any category.

Seriously, how can Nikon be considered anywhere near the level you make them out to be? I'm the type of guy that tests and tests and tests for months before I buy, and Nikon just hasn't impressed me at all.

By "luxury brand", do you mean a brand so far behind the times that they're not even competitive (i.e. a brand you buy just for the name and not what the camera can do for you). If that's what you mean by a luxury brand, then more power to Nikon for cultivating this image of the saps and rich dummies of the world. For me personally, I wouldn't mind if the so-called luxury brands disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow