Discussion in 'Nikon Cameras' started by MopsterUK, Jan 18, 2013.
I'm guessing another BOT.. since this was stolen from Post #9!
Ok, just read six pages of discussions on the iPhone. Big headache now. Better go to sleep. I only suggestion is that if you suspect the fault is at the camera, then sell it and get a new one. It's really your choice. Disappointment is not going to fix the issue.
Then don't quote it and help the spammer spam.
I'll try to respond to everyone but I am sorry if I've missed anyone out.
The question I made is a vague question, it is open to interpretation and selection on what to actually discuss. The context of the discussion initially was intended to be spawned from, whilst pertaining, to my situation but not specifically about my situation, or limited to it.
I have learned from my mistake. I should have been less vague and asked more direct questions. Although I'm not sure I would have got the type of debate I'd have wanted if I asked more direct questions. On the other hand, I don't believe I'm getting the debate I intended by being less direct.
You are correct in that it is not clear from the post if I have tested my lenses in various situations etc. I can clear that matter up by stating the following. As cgipson1 has said, I am satisfied with the level of diagnosis and analysis that has been done. I am satisfied to the point that I do not wish to discuss if my camera has back focusing or not.
I hope this clears up the matter
@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)
I agree that sometimes you get a bad lemon, in this instance it appears that I am in this category. Although I accept that premises, I do believe that any company have a legal and moral duty to act with honour to avoid (or remedy) selling a lemon. I am not saying that Nikon is not acting honourably at this point. I'm aware that my reaction may seem like a "knee jerk reaction" and that I may be "throwing the baby out with the bath water". However, the notion of moving to another Nikon body or obtaining another d7000 is something also open for discussion. The thought of moving to a Canon would essentially be addressing only one of my issues that I have right now; the lack of foreseeable options in the full frame market for a d7000 owner to upgrade to. I'll state that what I'm saying here is not proposed as matter of fact but matter of opinion (which is also why my leading question was less direct as closed ended questions often leads to closed ended replies).
I'll keep this reply concise, nope.
The problem here is that this thread has taken on its on development into discussing back focus. I've stated in the title a loss of faith in Nikon products. What would be more accurate is if I said it less definitive by adding 'at this time'.
You have stated here your analysis and conclusion. What is this based on feeling or evidence? The following quote elaborates some flaws in your logic. I will need your help in telling me if I've got the idea of what you are trying to say.
If you read this back you can see that you have you a) made assumptions on what I have or have not done. There is no evidenced just 'guesswork'. b) You've taken a lack of divulged evidence as a form of substantial 'anti evidence'. The correct interpretation is that a lack of evidence is just that 'a lack of evidence'.
I get the gist here that you are stating that I am refusing help on a back focusing issue. This aspect is true. I am refusing help of this kind as it is not required, desired, or needed. I also get the impression from what you are saying that I have hatred towards Nikon (or some other emotional relevant fuelled word). This is not the case. I am weary of purchasing from Nikons current crop which is a natural human reaction to have. I'm not asking (and never did) for people to agree with me (in fact, I've never stated anything worthy of needing agreement or disagreement <I would have to double check that though>) or for pity.
I should have tied this to your above quote. I feel like replying to this last section is repeating what I've already mentioned above to you. At no point have I represented Nikon as 'evil'. Lets get things in perspective. I've said I've had problems with a Nikon product I haven't said Nikon kill babies.
You've stated I may be the problem. I am aware of that fact and went to great lengths to assess if this was the case. At no point have I said focusing cannot be a user error. As much as I can conceive that a user can be the error it seems unfathomable for some to conceive that a camera (or specifically for some 'a Nikon') body could be at fault. Some people until this thread couldn't conceive that the lens could be at fault in focusing issues.
Your final point was more a statement to evoke emotional responses 'If you are disillusioned with Nikon get rid of it and buy a Canon'. I'm just going to highlight that rather than dignify it with a response.
I will refer you to elements of the above reply.
It is easy to obtain many examples of soft focusing through any search engine such as Google.
Sadly I don't think I could sell the camera in good conscious knowing that I'm effectively selling someone a lemon. I would be extorting someone elses naivety. The prospect of buying another one, as you mentioned, is worth considering. I know that it is unlikely I would get another camera in the same situation (especially if I switched retailer).
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. 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.
I'm finished with this thread. It's an utter waste of time.
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.
I would look into a used Minolta d-slr. Very cool "old-school" ergonomics, quite different from other companies' products.
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.
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."
(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:
In an effort to respond, sm4him wrote:
In response, you wrote:
(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.
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.
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?
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.
Lets say you are in America and I'm in the UK and you want to help me with my problem remotely. Lets say that my Honda has a flat tyre. I know it's flat because I can clearly see it's flat. All evidence suggests its 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. Lets 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:
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.
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
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:
In my original post I talked about more than just 'Nikon customer services' and 'back focusing'.
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 Id 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 wasnt 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, Ive 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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.