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

dwa1 wrote:

NorCalAl wrote:

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.

Perhaps it would be good to have a separate thread on each of the Lens Talk forums (Canon & Nikon). I am becoming more and more curious about these items:

A - Cost. Generally speaking, what would be the estimated cost to sell and replace 2 DX bodies, 2 3rd party prime lenses, 2 Nikon zoom lenses.? If the cost would be over $1000 to make the switch, then perhaps it would be better (and easier) to pay that money to a company like APS (spanning several services) for lenses in warranty years 2 to 5 (rather than take the chance of having to deal with situations like the OP's current issues with Mellville).

B - Service. How does Canon's service in the USA over the past 3-4 years compare with the same time period for Nikon's USA service?

C - Quality Control (factory). Canon vs. Nikon over the past 3-4 years.

D - Technology / Product Features. How do the 2 compare? For example, does Canon have DX and FX bodies with AF Fine Tune? Low noise capability - is there a Canon equivalent of a D700? Is there a Canon equivalent of NX2?

Just curious / food for thought.


I'd love to see quantified answers to your questions, but I fear we'd just get more 'opinions'.

My comments were limited to - as most opinions on these forums are - my experiences. My experiences with service from both manufacturers was satisfactory. I've only used each once.

When it comes to QC, I do not see the QC problems in the forums about Nikon's stuff like I saw in my years as a Canon user. There is a perception, even among L series lens buyers in the Canon camp, that there is significant copy variation among even the most popular lenses. I never had a bad Canon lens and owned 30 or more. Truth be told, I've never owned a Tokina, Sigma, Canon or Nikon lens that had a QC problem out of the box. The 16-85 that failed did so a year into use. That happens.

My D7000 (my second Nikon body after my D300) spews oil on the sensor and must be cleaned every 500-700 shots. That is simply crap design and not a QC problem. My issue there is there's no way to go to replace it. I'm not going down to a D90 or 5100 and I'm not going sideways (or up) to a D700 or 800. And I'm not going back to a D300 - I like video and some of the other changes.

I felt, when I changed from Canon, that Nikon had the superior bodies and high ISO performance. Still feel that way. Nikon does not have a parity with Canon on lenses, however. My 24-105/4L, 70-200/4L and 100-400L were vastly better in construction and performance to the similar Nikkors. Of course, there is no comparable Nikkor to the 70-200/4IS or 100-400. Nikon has, for whatever reason, decided only 2.8 justifies a "professional" approach. I was sadly disappointed by lens selection when I switched camps. That said, Canon has done zero to shrink the gap in body technology. They've focused (pardon the pun) on lower end (and I imagine higher margain) dslrs. The 7D seems capable, but so was my 40D. Just the D300 was better.

I think, and have no empirical evidence to prove this, that as the masses have moved to digital and dslrs have migrated into the hands of so many, that the need for Canon and Nikon to produce true quality has dropped. The professional orgs for both makers used to do just about anything short of backflips to ensure the users of the product would be satisfied. Since there was a smaller group to make the money from, prior to digital, they needed to make sure the users were happy. Not any more. Most companies care only about making sure you buy - not that you're happy with the purchase or quality. If you buy a D300 and a couple lenses, you're invested in the brand and more than likely will continue to purchase, even if you have problems. A lot of companies only really care that you'll come in the store and grab their product - they couldn't care less about anything past that point. (You know, 50 people asking you if you need help, 2 checking out the line of people.)

Like I said, I have no research to prove this theory, just experience. My car is a piece of crap and the manufacturer says it's within specs. My D7000 - and many others - spew oil but it's not a problem. It's epidemic and not likely to get better.

Unless and until someone has real evidence to answer your questions, all we get is the impressions of those dedicated to the brand. The "I never had a problem so it's a great product" or "I got a bad one so the whole company is crap" type opinions. I, too, would love to see objective measures of QC, returns for defects, etc. We never will. So we buy one brand or another, move from one brand to another, buy-and-try lenses to find a good one. We may complain, but what choices are there? My real sympathy is for the pros who depend on their gear for their income. The decline of quality has to be felt most painfully there. I'm just a hobbyist.

 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