Is it time to call an attorney general about Nikon?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Horshack Veteran Member • Posts: 5,889
Re: Is it time to call an attorney general about Nikon?

j_photo wrote:

But allow me to explain my original reply to your post. I have gone back and re-read the linked post again. It still sounds to me like a used lens got dropped twice and then was sent to Nikon. Then the poster says, and I quote, "Happened another time, same lens..." Maybe I am mis-reading this, but I came away from this post thinking the OP dropped a lens 3 times and was upset that Nikon claimed impact damage. Furthermore, the poster keeps putting "impact damage" in quotes as if it's some sort of euphemism. If dropping a lens isn't impact damage I don't know what is. In all honesty, after reading this, I was left with a less than sympathetic impression about that post, and to some extent yours as well.

His writing is hard to decipher but I think he dropped the lens, paid for the repair out of pocket, experienced a problem using the lens post-repair, sent it back in, and Nikon rejected the 2nd repair due to impact damage, even though the impact damage was originally repaired.

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