Second time BACK to Nikon Service - Please offer advice

Started Feb 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
NorCalAl Forum Member • Posts: 77
Re: Second time BACK to Nikon Service - Please offer advice

I've had the opportunity to use both Canon (to repair a 24-70 damaged in shipping) and Nikon (to repair a 16-85 that stopped autofocusing) service and both were pretty good. Canon was four years ago and Nikon, two. Since then, and keep in mind that negative experiences generate 8-10 times more comments than positive experiences, all I see is negative comments. There are other, more worrisome signs.

Nikon, as has been mentioned here, will not let other shops purchase new parts to repair their lenses or cameras. Arguments, in the absence of a real reason from Nikon, could be made for both sides. Nikon may wish to create stronger quality control and weed out those shops that provide poor service. This is a simple way to do that without singling out a specific shop (or doing any research or due diligence). Nikon could also be covering up shoddy workmanship at the factory by ensuring that only they see the insides of the products. The cynic in me leans toward the latter explanation.

Nikon has been doing some interesting things recently. The price policing. This repair policing. Is Nikon in financial trouble? Are they circling the wagons to make sure that, unlike Olympus, they aren't exposed (and arrested!)? Have they lowered standards in manufacturing due to trying to resume normal operations after both the Japan and Taiwan damage to their factories?

I don't know. I do know they won't give a hoot about small claims court - despite what you might hope. Really, all a verdict does there, whether against your neighbor or Nikon, is give you the right to pursue the collection of your damages. The court doesn't hand you money or a new lens. Many people get judgements only to find out that all they get is a verdict in their favor. And against a huge corporation, based in Japan? Good luck. More than likely all you'll be is out the court money as well, although you might have some kind of moral victory.

No, until people, lots and lots of people, vote with their dollars, Nikon won't change a thing in what they do. If you could, in this day and age, get enough examples and a few lawyers and generate a class-action suit, you might eventually make the lawyers rich and get a free lens hood or something.

Nothing, short of a massive defection, will change their course. Many huge corporations get sidetracked from what is important by single individuals within their ranks and some never come back. Nikon is not exempt. Perhaps someone has made the case that cost needs to override all other concerns and this is that person's way of controlling cost. Tunnel-vision kills many great companies. Not trying to get philosophical, but if Nikon really is doing the things mentioned in this thread as a way of doing business, no letter to some supervisor is going to change them. Look at Dell - until the courts ruled against them in very public and costly ways, they knowingly sold defective machines to the buying public - for years! It was a deliberate act. You don't think lots of letters were written by angry customers?

Sorry, I moved to Nikon largely on reputation and a perception of better bodies after experiencing wildly varying QC from Canon. Only to find it beginning on the Dark Side as well. I can't afford to move back nor move to Leica (which I'm sure has horror stories as well). We have to vote with our dollars. Period.

 NorCalAl's gear list:NorCalAl's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 8700 Nikon D40 Nikon D7100 Nikon D5300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow