Is it time to call an attorney general about Nikon?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
j_photo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,312
Re: Is it time to call an attorney general about Nikon?

Horshack wrote:

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.

That makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I may have mis-read. Hopefully one can see how I could have come away with a different impression.

 j_photo's gear list:j_photo's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon Df
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