Lack of faith in NIKON products!

[molested_cow]

Hey hey I will tell you what you want to know. Go ahead and jump ship. We don't need this thread to begin with.

 

[Derrel]

I would look into a used Minolta d-slr. Very cool "old-school" ergonomics, quite different from other companies' products.

 

[BrianV]

No need to reply to everyone. Sounds more like a farewell speech to the world of Nikon. Should have started it with

"Three-Score and Seven years ago, Nikon emerged from the ashes to create a new vision in photography...Today their service department threatens the focus of that vision..."

I've used Nikon's repair service for one camera that was under warranty. The problem was with the autofocus of a Lite-Touch zoom. The autofocus was off, and two trips to Nikon did not correct it. Prints from test rolls accompanied the camera. As their repairs did not work, their test procedures are inadequate. This is where buying a camera from a "Brick-and"mortar" shop that will assist in getting the problem corrected is important. It is also where the "lemon" laws are important. The last Nikon camera that I bought new was a Rangefinder, an S3-2000 that cost as much as a D800. No problems, but if there were- I have the factory service manual and just adjust the focus mechanism myself. If you buy a Nikon rangefinder, I have the Nikon SP Service manual in PDF format.

 

[colnago1331]

I can't believe I'm wading into this mess, but what the hell.....

You titled your thread "Lack of faith in NIKON products!" (emphasis added), however your initial post indicates that your problem is not with Nikon products but rather with the "poor after care to resolve the problem."

Since owning my D7000 I noticed that images were not as sharp as images with my d3100. However, as every now and then I'd get a good shot I just initially assumed it was the user behind the camera rather than the camera itself. As I grew more and more concerned I started reading up on focusing and running several test. I noticed much beloved d7000 was back focusing. I braced myself for the worse as I sent it back to Nikon for repair. it came back with a suggested recognition and fix to my problem. However, the problem was not fixed. On returning the camera to Nikon for further repair I got a response saying unable to recreate the problem. However, I know it exist.

This situation left me with a lack of faith in the current stock of Nikon bodies out there and with future releases. I accept any camera can have a problem but it's the issue of poor after care to resolve the problem.

(Emphasis added). This, of course, would imply that your issue is with Nikon's customer service and not necessarily the product itself, especially since you recognize that "any camera can have a problem. . . ."

At the same time, you discuss back focusing issues you're having with your D7000 and, for whatever reason, you refuse to provide information requested as to the lenses you are using and the "testing" that you have done to ensure that this was not user error. And that's fine - if you're convinced that you've narrowed the issue down to the D7000 itself and not either (a) lens issues or (b) user error then, to some degree, we must, in responding to your post, take this as fact.

Later, you write this:

2) I'm not looking for woe is me but a general discussion regarding nikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000.

(Emphasis added).

In an effort to respond, sm4him wrote:

Okay, we'll work on your premises. D7000 is not as sharp as your D3100 and it's not user error and it's been sent for repair and now they say it's fixed and you say it's not. It's frustrated you to the point of losing faith in Nikon.


Do I pretty much have that right? If so, all I can say is:
(EDIT: If I do NOT have it right, don't bother to tell me...I'll be off somewhere, watching paint dry instead...)


Sometimes, you get a lemon. Sometimes, you get bad customer service. Sometimes, those things happen in combination, and repeatedly. I know of NO companies for which this is not true. Therefore, all I can tell you is, "you pay your money and you take your chances."


I'd stick with Nikon, personally. Not likely to get yet another lemon the next time. But there are just no certainties in life or in photography.

In response, you wrote:

@sm4him, you pretty much have it right in your post. Your post outlined one aspect that is able to be derived from what I posted. However, I want to state that there is a lot more scope in my original post that is available for discussion (this ties in with the reply I've made above).

(Emphasis added). The problem is, there's not more scope in your original post that is available for discussion because you've shut down most of the other discussion, which pertains to possible causes of or solutions to your back focus issues. As you've admitted, your original post was vague in terms of your actual question(s) for discussion. In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon products your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care". Notwithstanding this, you later ask, more clearly and directly, for a discussion regarding "[N]ikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000".

So I guess there are only two ways to go from here. One - the mods could lock this thread because, quite frankly, it's so vague and confusing and has gone so far off any reasonable course that it is, in no way, informative or conducive to producing the kind of discussion that this site is used to. Or two - you could actually clarify what it is you want to discuss. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a smart guy. I've got a bachelor's degree in rhetoric and writing and a law degree. I practice law (litigation to be exact) and I do a lot of reading, writing and analysis and I'm very good at what I do. And, quite frankly, after reviewing this entire thread I still don't know what you want the topic or topics of discussion to be.

 

[invisible]

Very interesting thread. Sounds to me that your camera is crap. Such a burden. I'll be more than happy to take this weight off of your shoulders for a song.

 

[MopsterUK]

All I can say is that if you have been as secretive and confusing with Nikon in trying to get your camera repaired I'm not at all surprised that the results were not what you wanted. Telling someone that your camera is back-focusing but then refusing to explain how you came to that conclusion and refusing to provide empirical evidence that it actually is back-focusing is not a good way to get help.

If I have been 'secretive and confusing with Nikon in trying to get my camera repaired' then I would fully expect to get nothing but poor service in reply. Seeing as that wouldn't benefit me then it would seem most peculiar for me to take that course of action, would it not?

I've come to the same conclusion that I expect Nikon came to due to the lack of any evidence to the contrary: User error pure and simple.

Essentially, you have based this on your feelings. I'll explain (again and hopefully for the last time) as to why I will not provide you any evidence. I'll use the Honda flat tyre analogy that was mentioned in an early post.

Let’s say you are in America and I'm in the UK and you want to help me with my problem remotely. Let’s say that my Honda has a flat tyre. I know it's flat because I can clearly see it's flat. All evidence suggests it’s flat. Evidence I can verify as I can see this. What if this flat tyre was during a journey and I had to keep the tyre on there in order to get back and as a result it was worn away the integrity of the tyre wall. Let’s say I can go one step further and say I know the cause to why it's flat; a big nail that is protruding the tyre wall.

In this scenario I am in a situation that I have a problem, I know why I have the problem and I know how to get it resolved. In this case, I need to have the tyre replaced as a repair of the puncture is no good. This is all able to be assessed without a third party intervening to diagnose my problem remotely.

Therefore, how would sending you evidence of my flat tyre change the current situation of my flat tyre? Who would it benefit by sending you evidence of my flat tyre? The only person it benefits is you and your curiosity.

This is similar to my situation. As I am confident that I have a back focusing problem that is a result of the Nikon body then it serves no purpose for me to try and persuade you otherwise.

-------------------------------------------------


@colnago1331, I'm happy that you did wade into this mess. In particular I have liked your reply as it brought the thread into some logical alignment. I want to address the issues of contradictions that you raised. I think I understand why it may be viewed as a contradiction.
You stated the following:

You titled your thread "Lack of faith in NIKON products!" (emphasis added), however your initial post indicates that your problem is not with Nikon products but rather with the "poor after care to resolve the problem."

(Emphasis added). This, of course, would imply that your issue is with Nikon's customer service and not necessarily the product itself, especially since you recognize that "any camera can have a problem. . . ."

In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon products your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care".

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that here you are conceptualising both the experience with the 'Nikon product' and with the 'Nikon customer service' as mutually exclusive (or to some degree). I do not hold this conception. Had I not had a problem with the product I would have no need to talk to the customer service regarding said problem. Therefore, if I buy into any Nikon product I am also buying into their customer service.

At the same time, you discuss back focusing issues you're having with your D7000 and, for whatever reason, you refuse to provide information requested as to the lenses you are using and the "testing" that you have done to ensure that this was not user error. And that's fine - if you're convinced that you've narrowed the issue down to the D7000 itself and not either (a) lens issues or (b) user error then, to some degree, we must, in responding to your post, take this as fact.

This is a logical premise to work from. I do not understand why people have taken a contrary stance to this logical principal. In general, many responses have come from the position 'this must be a matter of opinion rather than fact' without having any evidence to support either way. In conclusion, people only have my word which they can choose to invest in or not.

You responded to this quote

However, I want to state that there is a lot more scope in my original post that is available for discussion.

I will state that I was wrong here in adding the words 'a lot'. Although, I concede that there is not a vast amount more ‘scope’ to be discussed I do not concede that there is no more ‘scope’ to be discussed from my original post. I shall explain further what I mean by this in reference to your following post:

The problem is, there's not more scope in your original post that is available for discussion because you've shut down most of the other discussion, which pertains to possible causes of or solutions to your back focus issues. As you've admitted, your original post was vague in terms of your actual question(s) for discussion. In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon products your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care". Notwithstanding this, you later ask, more clearly and directly, for a discussion regarding "[N]ikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000".

In my original post I talked about more than just 'Nikon customer services' and 'back focusing'.

As I said I wanted a second body. What is the point of getting a second body if I feel I may be in a similar position. My ideas on upgrading to a Nikon full frame is also now feeling shabby. The d800 is too much for what I want. The d600 is two similar to the d7000 to warrant my interest (IMO). The d700, well I've not looked to much into it but essentially I'd like to move forward with technology. So I feel that there is no full frame Nikon that is suitable for my needs/deserve at the moment.

I'm now at a point where I'm considering jumping ship to cannon and going with a full frame option there. This isn't the ideal thing as I'd prefer to stay with Nikon as I've invested time and money into my hobby with Nikon. Additionally, from what I've used (albeit brief) I wasn't overtly found of the ergonomics of Canon.

So there is my situation. I might end up cutting of my nose to spite my face. What do you good people make of this situation? Advice and discussion welcomed.

N.B. Firstly, I'll just add this here, I don't want this really to turn into a discussion of fanboy vs fanboy from either Canon or Nikon camps. That sort of argument doesn't interest me. Secondly, I'm not looking for anyone to try and search a) if my problem exist or b) recommend ways to resolve my back focusing problems on the d7000.

There are different discourse themes that can be derived from this. The first two paragraphs here provide scope for other themes to have been developed; i.e. ‘if I was upgrading I might get this…’, ‘I like the use of old technology more than the newer technology’, ‘If I had an issue of some kind with my Nikon product I’d stay with Nikon as x and y make a logical reason for me to ’, ‘I think Nikons future crop of cameras will be worth holding out for’. I think there were only a few people that addressed anything other than back focusing (whilst staying relevant to the thread). People have said they do not know what to be discussing as it wasn’t prescribed to them in the form of discrete questions. However, the back focusing was one thing that I did prescribe not to discuss, yet it was the only topic that people wanted to discuss. I ended up making a suggestion postulated in a form of a question as I realised (as you mentioned '...the kind of discussion that this site is used to’). As I stated, I’ve learned that this forum may not be a good place for general discussion; instead more direct discussion based on a prescription of what should/needed to be discussed. Therefore, I have failed to utilise the forum in its most beneficial way. People could have chosen what sort of voice this thread had. They could have chosen to discuss other aspects from my post.

So I guess there are only two ways to go from here. One - the mods could lock this thread because, quite frankly, it's so vague and confusing and has gone so far off any reasonable course that it is, in no way, informative or conducive to producing the kind of discussion that this site is used to. Or two - you could actually clarify what it is you want to discuss. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a smart guy. I've got a bachelor's degree in rhetoric and writing and a law degree. I practice law (litigation to be exact) and I do a lot of reading, writing and analysis and I'm very good at what I do. And, quite frankly, after reviewing this entire thread I still don't know what you want the topic or topics of discussion to be.

I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph. This thread has almost turned into a game of "can you guess what the question is" or "$10, I bet he's wrong and it is user error". It serves no real informative value (accept maybe an insight into those who participated and a lesson on assumptions). I feel this thread only serves as a form of entertainment, not for all but some.

 

[Overread]

It seems that we are going in circles without any clear resolution - in light of this I think its time to draw this to a close and to move on from this matter. I hope the OP has luck in resolving his problem.