Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon Quality

Go to last post
seahawk said:
It tells us a lot about Nikon. 5 People use a Nikon, that is 2 more
then Lieca M users. 60 something used Canon, so it is logical that
Canon has more failures. I bet you will easiyl find 5 Canon shooters
who had no problems at all.
Click to expand...
Well, according to the figures in the text, if you'd pick randomly 5 Canon users 10 times, you'd pick five Canon shooters with no problems 4 times, and get at least one with a broken camera 6 times (or in other words, if you pick once, you have a chance of about 40% to pick five guys that had no camera troubles). I guess it all depends on what "easily" means for you...

BG
 
I know your frustrated...but that sounds like DAMN good figures if you ask me...

40 years and just now yo get a manufacturing defect?

I have had gear fail on a shoot too......and like you I had backup...

But I have a realistic understanding that gear WILL fail (hense the good sense of having backup)

And take the failures in stride.

May your frustration ease...may your lens be replaced with one that works...and may you have another 40 years problem free.

Roman
--

The Law Of Attraction is ALWAYS working. Your only choice is whether you drive 'it'...or 'it' drives you.
-Me
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Firstly the OP has had a run of a bad luck. I know loads of Nikon shooters and have never heard of any having this many equipment failures. I have heard of faults with other makes, Canon used to have issues with lens elements popping out! Sigma had a poor QC reputation for years. The early Hasselblad X-Pan had problems with the paint finish flaking off.

Whatever brand your in there's always going to be equipment issues. Its just unfortunate that what could go wrong has gone wrong for the OP. One assertion made in this thread I do agree with is the introduction of cheap equipment. A few decades ago you could have bought anything made by Nikon and be assured of the quality, that is no longer the case. Nikon is a business and they clearly recognised there is a market for cheaper consumer goods. They are taking some of that market share. Hence the introduction of 18-200mm, 18-70mm, 55-200mm, 18-55mm the list could go on. These lenses allow Nikon to make entry level kits at a price to fit the budget of amateurs and those who just want something better than a point and shoot. I don't think any of these plastic fantastics are either marketed or intended for professional use.

The problems with bodies like the D200 are clearly not acceptable, but would seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

simon
--
http://www.sbphotography.org.uk
 
Ouch! That's some run of bad luck. :-(
AAK said:
As you know, I've returned three new Sony P&S cameras for replacement
over the last year-and-a-half, and recently returned two (2!!) Canon
Pixma 9000 printers, both of which died within hours of receipt. I
gave up on those completely.
Click to expand...
OK, I really don't think you should be allowed to go anywhere near anything electrical - perhaps you have a computer virus that you're giving them? LOL :-D

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
AAK said:
That lens is doing well now. Wish I could say the same for the lame
18-200.

There's one other thing to be said. That lens went up in price since
it was first released, and often sells today for $849 plus tax and
shipping. That makes it a nine-hundred-dollar lens. Is it Pro glass?
No. But it is a hunk of glass that costs almost $1000... what was the
last $1000 purchase that you were OK with falling apart regularly
until it self-destructed? :-)
Click to expand...
My first car! I paid $2k for a VW Golf GTI that I spent more on replacement parts than the car itself. Granted, it had over 100k miles on it and was over 12 yrs old! Point taken.

The only way I justified the cost of the 18-200VR was to buy it as part of a D200 bundle, which brought the lens cost to ~$850. There was no way I was going to pay $1k for it had I purchased it a la carte.
 
The statistic is based on the percentages.
seahawk said:
... 60 something used Canon...
Click to expand...
There were nearly 50 photographers on the expedition...
About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear...
The 85% of 50 is 42.5 not 60
seahawk said:
... so it is logical that Canon has more failures.
Click to expand...
Not "more failures" but "the only failures".

Canon 37.65% of Photographers have one of those problems:

Three of them recovered after ... Three remained hors de combat ... Three Canon 5D's died ... Two Rebel XTi's ... lost two video cameras ... two Canon 70-210mm f/2.8L IS, and a Canon 28-135mm.

Nikon 0% problems or failures.

There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures.
In all the ways, be happy, in all the brands there are shops of repairs.
Regards.
--

 
I agree, after using Nikon stuff for almost 30 years and can't remember returning stuff for repairs like now. Just sent new D-200 back for numerous problems with less that 300 clicks. Was with another Photographer at a Wedding, and his SB800 on a D200 kept flashing by itself. I have never seen a peice of equipment that had so many different issues.
Chet
 
--
tommiejeep

In the 'for what it's worth' catagory. Check out http://www.lensplay.com . I know it is primarily a Canon site but they are doing a lens survey of lens defects for all manufacturers. I think all will find interesting even though not a huge sample(a few thousand). If you submit your probs. it might bring Nikon down! closer to Canon.
Sorry for your problems, good luck in the future with whatever you decide.
Cheers
 
David Rosser said:
A lot about what is or is not pro gear on this thread. Here is what
Nikon considers pro gear from the Nikon UK web site

http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/en_GB/local_content/broad/25/1.html

As many have said Nikon do not consider 18-200 a pro lens. More
interestingly nor do they consider the 80-400VR pro despite a 4
figure price tag. Interestingly though they do consider the 300 f/4
a pro lens.
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser
Click to expand...
Also only a quarter of the lenses Nikon consider professional quality are zooms.
--
Dave
http://www.rosser.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.pbase.com/dgrosser
 
I got the 18-200 vr lens with my d200, after about 9 600 shots (about 7 months) the lens vr system stopped functioning. The creep was also bad. Took it to Nikon, they sent it to Germany for repairs, after about 6 weeks the guy phoned me up and told me to come collect a new lens free of charge as it wasn't worth the wait and repair cost to the vr system. The new lens is a lot tighter thus no creep and so far the vr is functioning well. Just hope it stays that way.
 
Hi!

Looking at one of my F3Ps with all it's dents and marks and the corresponding lenses (that have never failed me and still work like a charm), I am sad to see that you don't get this kind of quality any more these days; as far as I can tell from my personal shooting experience (and I do torture my gear), no manufacturer of DSLRs as of today is an exception to this trend.

Regards
Alex

--



carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

=> Closeup/Macro Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/magma_photography/root
 
Be happy with what, exactly?

A brand new, 4.5k professional camera released with possibly the biggest bug ever found in any professional camera, and they still won't even publicly acknowledge that there is a problem. Typical Canon. It took them 3 months to admit that the 1DII and 1DsII were losing images as well, despite the fact it was common knowledge.

Canon's litany of DSLR problems date back for years:

The 1DIII focus, ERR01 and ERR99 problems [to date un-rectified, 3 months after release]

The 1D banding [fixed by recall]

The 1DII, 1DsII and 350d card corruptions/lost images issue [fixed by firmware after a few months]

The many 1DII, 1DIIn and 1DsII with a short-lived shutter [ongoing]

The 10D focus problems [fixed by users sending in their cameras....again and again and again]

The 20D grip recall [fixed by recall after almost 6 months]

The 20D crashing/lockups [fixed by three firmware updates over a period of a week, a month after the problems started]

The 20D premature shutter failures ( http://www.lieffcabraser.com/canon-eos.htm ) [ongoing]

The 5D AI servo banding [ongoing]

Then there was the several 580EX flashes that spontaneously combusted

The very patchy quality of the 16-35 and the 24-70 lenses

I hardly think switching to Canon is going to solve any problems......
 
El Taino said:
You are trying to earn your living as you say, abusing a consumer
grade lens. I wouldn't do it for those issues although yours seems
like an isolated case.
Click to expand...
That is true, the example of the 18-200 is not well chosen.
 
I've seen some incredibly banged up gear going back to F2s and the user is totally to blame. There are also cameras that spend most of their life sitting on velvet cushions. Statistically anything can fail and do. I think the bigger problem is Nikon won't clearly and accurately market a piece of equipment as "pro use" or amateur use". Ditto for "weather resistant".

The subject and question you pose could generate a few books. I'd just say that Nikon quality is dependent on reputation and warranty claims. If a problem costs the company they will fix it. Just hope you don't have a piece of equipment that is a known problem. They certainly don't pay for your downtime.

I believe you've already been ragged on enough for using the 18-200.

If I remember correctly, everything is pro according to Nikon, until it fails and you are told it is amateur grade after all. People using D70s for weddings found that one out pretty fast.
--
All I can afford is a half-frame from Thailand.
 
A professional photographer will approach this type of event with professional equipment, not consumer gear.

Have a body with a 17-55 and another body with a 70-200 ready to shoot one after the other.

I have never seen an 11 X pro Zoom on the market, there must be a reason.

On it's own and used carefully, the 18-200 will lead to superb results but the limitation shows when you need it for "pro" assingments

I guess it is lesson learned.

BTW, even Pro equipment can fail wether it is Nikon or any other brands.
Bad luck maybe.
AAK said:
Warning: rant

I'm not a troll. I'm a professional photographer who's been using
Nikon since the late 1960's, early 1970s. A Nikkormat was my first
'serious' camera as a teenager. And through all those years, I've
come to associate quality with the Nikon brand.

No more.

When I switched to DSLR, of course, I went Nikon. And all went well
until my D200s. The first one went back for 6 major system
replacements (circuit boards, AF assembly, even a new shutter
assembly). The second one went back with a defective lens mount that
had to be replaced, and which apparently damaged my 70-200 f/2.8 VR
which also had to be rebuilt (new mount, new motor).

My 18-200 VR, which I like for assignments like today's, was repaired
two months ago because the creep had gotten so bad that the lens was
no longer usable. Nikon agreed and replaced many parts.

It took five weeks.

Today, I'm shooting an outdoor assignment: a Latin Festival with four
rotating bands and thousands of attendees.The 18-200 is perfect for
gigs like that. I can shoot a closeup of a performer and then spin
around, zoom to wide-angle and shoot the dancers behind me.

That is, until the damned lens fell apart. Won't zoom all the way to
tele. Falls back about 1 1/2" in an uncontrolledslide when you go
wide and lands with a bad clunk. No autofocus. In fact, no manual
focus.

The lens is hosed. It's obviously gone off the rails.

And ruined my shoot. Try shooting several thousand people in an
audience with a 70mm lens! So I'm using my backup camera for the wide
and absolutely steaming about the obviously very badly deteriorated
quality of Nikon equipment.

I'd switch to Canon tommorrow, because reliability is an absolute
requirement in order for me to earn my living, but it seems like
Canon is having more than its share of quality issues!

So, does ANYONE make a reliable camera any more? Or has Q/C just gone
down the tubes across the entire industry?

Sorry to be so vehement, but my patience with Nikon is just about gone.

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper
Click to expand...
--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root
 
Yves P. said:
I have never seen an 11 X pro Zoom on the market, there must be a
reason.

On it's own and used carefully, the 18-200 will lead to superb
results but the limitation shows when you need it for "pro"
assingments
Click to expand...
In general, I agree with your above statement, but Canon used to make a 10x pro zoom, the 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM which I believe, is considered a "pro" lens by the L-designation. OK, it's 10x and not 11x but who's keeping track ;)
 
Jason Chan59347 said:
In general, I agree with your above statement, but Canon used to make
a 10x pro zoom, the 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM which I believe, is
considered a "pro" lens by the L-designation. OK, it's 10x and not
11x but who's keeping track ;)
Click to expand...
I believe it is a dreaded push / pull zoom !! yuck. potentially a great lens and it retails for about £1500 in the UK!!

--
Regards, FletchUK.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top