My letter to Nikon customer service...

Started Mar 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Steve_in_FL Contributing Member • Posts: 963
Re: Hyperbolic threats are seldom well-received.

BJN wrote:

mdg137 wrote:

After getting my D800E back, in worse calibration...


Who uses that salutation in the 21st century – unless you know for a fact that you have a male audience?

Actually, this is what all writing teachers suggest - either that, or Dear Sirs.

I have been a Nikon owner and user since the advent of the F5. Since the 1990’s, I have used the F5, F2AS, F3, F4, F6, D2x, D200, D3, D3x and now the D800E.

I purchased this camera in May, 2012 (see attached invoice). At the time of purchase, the camera had issues with the left side focus points. I returned the camera to Nikon service at that time.

In February, 2013, I noticed an alarming number of misfocused images. I tested the camera with several lenses, and found wildly inconsistent focusing, varying from shot to shot, even when the camera was tripod mounted, and the target was stationary.

Hyperbole doesn't help here. What does "wildly" mean?

I don't see any hyperbole at all - except in your description.  Webster defines "wildly" as extremely.

At that time, I returned the camera for a second round of service. I received the camera back at the end of February, and found it to be in infinitely WORSE calibration than when I sent it. At this point, it is front focusing to a degree that is far beyond the realm of fine tuning. It displays this behavior with every lens I tested.

Again. "Infinitely" worse. I can't even imagine what that means. It sounds unreasonable and hyperbolic – because it is.

It seems pretty clear to me.  It was so much worse as to beggar the imagination.  I agree that is unreasonable, but for Nikon to have done, not the writer.  Again, no hyperbole, considering how bad it was.

Compared to my Canon equipment, it is so far off as to be utterly useless.

It's hard to believe that the camera is "utterly useless". More hyperbole, no quantification or facts.

It IS hard to believe that Nikon would return a camera in this shape.  Shame on Nikon.  But there are facts here:  Nikon's attempt at repair actually made the camera worse.  The focus is now so bad that it makes the camera unusable.  That is not hyperbole.  Note: Webster defines hyperbole as exaggeration.  I'm not seeing any exaggeration here.

I contacted Nikon on Friday, March 8, 2013, and was promised by Cxxxxxx that I would be emailed a return shipping label within 48 hours.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, I contacted Nikon again, to inquire as to the whereabouts of the label. The customer service rep I spoke with had no idea I had been assured of receipt of such a label, but in turn, promised to email one out right away.

On Thursday, March 14, I made one more call to Nikon—only to be informed that is was standard operating procedure to request sample images before issuing any return shipping labels. Somehow, every customer service rep I had spoken with up to this point was completely unaware of this company policy.

The request for sample images was made, and answered (with supplied images) on Tuesday the 12th, BEFORE I spoke with the customer rep.

Confusing, but at least you're getting into facts. You say that on March 14 the customer service person was the first who knew the sample image policy, yet you say they requested sample images on the 12th. That sounds inconsistent.

Also note, I am not specifying the several instances during this process where a Nikon rep told me they would look into something and email me an answer, only to be followed by deafening silence.

By law, items sold within the United States (under the UCC) generally carry with them an “Implied Warranty of Merchantability” in addition to any company warranty. Part of this implied warranty provides “They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used…” I think, Nikon would be the first to admit that the ability to focus semi-accurately would be essential to the ordinary use of the camera…

And I'm sure you also know that that you'd have to prove that the focusing accuracy isn't within acceptable industry standards. Perfection is not guaranteed. In fact, it's not possible with the variables of phase-detect AF. You imply that the product model itself isn't fit to be sold. That's not backed up by market acceptance and the opinions of professional users. Your issue is with the particular camera you bought. That's where good test image documentation would make your case.

Given that this is now the 3rdtime the camera has been returned to you for repair, coupled with the breathtakingly inept (bordering on offensive) customer service-- I am, to put it diplomatically, substantially less than convinced that the issue can be made right with this body.

"3rdtime" - typo. More hyperbole.

How is this exaggeration?

With that in mind, I am hereby requesting a replacement body for the defective body serial no. xxxxxxx.

What little faith I have in Nikon at this point, is the faith that Nikon will make this right.

Makes no sense. You think that a breathtakingly inept, even offensive company would be interested in making things right?

Ahh, you are starting to understand the problem now!

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may provide any further information.


Marke D. Gilbert

Attorney at Law

Can't resist pulling out the JD? Both the legal citation and title imply a threat. Few people respond with their best efforts when threatened.

They haven't previously responded in an appropriate manner.  Perhaps the stick will help.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

BJ Nicholls

 Steve_in_FL's gear list:Steve_in_FL's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow