Validity of Nikon’s quality (Page 4): ...

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Jamil wrote:

I was at a camera repair with my D810 the other day and the repair person was exclaiming about how my camera was made to last a year or two. Iâve had this unit for almost 2 years and have had nary a problem. His point was that manufacturers plan it that way to stimulate sales. Iâve used Nikon for the past 40 years and have never entertained that planned obsolescence was Nikon âs criterion for itâs products.
I was wondering whether any of you had heard âsuch â

ajcotterell

I disagree with the idea of planned obsolescence with regard to Nikon products. I personally have used Nikon cameras since 1960, and have a Nikon F that I used as a Marine combat photographer in Vietnam (1965-66). The camera still works, has been overhauled here in the States twice, and is now a museum piece, as I have moved on to a Nikon D810.

rdoc Loc: Rochester, MN

Had to get rid of my F3 to go digital with a D50, it's still working fine. For some strange reason (GAS suspected) I have had a D300 and now a D3200. I have also had a plethora of smaller (compact) Nikons. Chronic GAS---I feel an attack coming on.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Jamil wrote:

I was at a camera repair with my D810 the other day and the repair person was exclaiming about how my camera was made to last a year or two. I’ve had this unit for almost 2 years and have had nary a problem. His point was that manufacturers plan it that way to stimulate sales. I’ve used Nikon for the past 40 years and have never entertained that planned obsolescence was Nikon ‘s criterion for it’s products.
I was wondering whether any of you had heard “such “

I would find someone who has a clue about which he speaks to work on my camera in the future. Or is he making excuses for the event that he screws your camera up?

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

budcmor wrote:

A friend of mine got 140,000 clicks before he wore out the shutter mechanism on his D3300. That's a lot of photos. He didn't feel cheated when it broke; he said it served him well.

I keep telling my friends, who are on a budget to get an entry-level DSLR, to buy a Nikon D3300. That is one tough DX camera.

donsyler

I would agree that, at a certain price point, cameras are designed for a specific life. I've spent more than 35 years in Manufacturing Quality and we do many very detailed studies around the durability and expected lifetime of every part that goes into our products. I've owned cameras since my college days, as a Photography Minor, and owned a Minolta SRT-101, (which I still have). That camera endured many events, such as my falling 15' through the rotted floor of a barn loft, that I can tell you my current Canon DSLR would not survive. With the increased electronic complexity, and the push for reduced weight, modern cameras are much more fragile than those bullet-proof units of the 70s. On the other hand, my Canon has capabilities that I never dreamed could exist when I ran around with my Minolta and is half the weight. My 48 year-old Minolta, by the way, still operates perfectly and I wish I could find a digital back for it.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Jamil wrote:

I was at a camera repair with my D810 the other day and the repair person was exclaiming about how my camera was made to last a year or two. I’ve had this unit for almost 2 years and have had nary a problem. His point was that manufacturers plan it that way to stimulate sales. I’ve used Nikon for the past 40 years and have never entertained that planned obsolescence was Nikon ‘s criterion for it’s products.
I was wondering whether any of you had heard “such “

Does this shop also sell new cameras?

SoftLights Loc: New Orleans, LA

You never know what's going to come out of peoples mouths. I still have my first DSLR, a D70 that I replaced with a D200, My daughter used the D70 through college and now my grandson is using it. I too still have my first serious camera, a used Nikon F that's been through countless Mardi Gras, hunting/fishing trips, weddings, weekend long parties and numerous forgotten other events. Technology is the driving force behind obsolescence.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Yes, in one occasion I heard a technician that had completed training on the D7000 say that it was a piece of rubbish. I have never heard anyone complaining about the lack of quality of this particular camera. I have used Nikon cameras since 1963 and I have been very satisfied with its ruggedness and performance.
You can be sure that your camera, with the proper care and maintenance will outlive you.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

I call it progress... I am retired from the postal service(5 years in feb) and when I was out delivering mail if a manager wanted to check on me, they had to get into a vehicle and find me. Now, each employee has their own individual electronic device with gps that their individual route is logged on and if they deviate walking, driving, their designated lunch time notifies management. That is not progress. A manufacturer improving their product is progress, although some individuals may disagree. My Nikon D700 is in for repair, my D90 works fine, my Sony a7 also works fine. Most of my GAS is lenses...

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I am still using my Nikon FM that I purchased in the late 1970’s.

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

My D100, the forgotten one, still works great.

pendennis

Obsolescence is generally a product of technology advancements. Obsolescence moves at a faster pace because technology moves at an even faster rate. When Moore's law was formulated in the 1960's, it merely forecast the improvement in calculations within computer chips. Since, it has become, more or less, the rule of technology improvements.

Consider that the modern digital camera isn't really much more than a small computer, with an array of sensors for input and visual output, not unlike a tablet computer. We may love our D70, or D300, but they are, by current standards, obsolete. Does that make them unusable? Hardly. Obsolescence gets a bad rap. Push button land lines still get the call through to the other end, albeit using digital interfaces along the way. Likewise, the D300 will make beautiful images, although not with the throughput speed of the D500, nor the increased processing speed.

Film, which is an analog medium, still is capable of beautiful images through a variety of cameras which could be considered dinosaurs by today's standards.

Manufacturers have to walk a razor's edge. They have to make reliable products with current technology, all the while planning for the next replacement, and maintaining the current and prior models for a period of time.

Automakers don't have the luxuries that Nikon, Canon, Apple, and other makers do. Parts, by law, have to be supplied for 10 years past the end of the current model year. And automobile technology is changing at about the same pace as other consumer products.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Rich1939 wrote:

'Programmed obsolescence' started in the early sixties, about the same time as the secret 80 mpg carburetor stories. Where would conversation be if it wasn't for conspiracy theories

Planned obsolescence is built into everything manufactured today. My Mr. Coffee coffee maker bites the dust every three years.

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

Another thought, I purchased my remanufactured D100 way back before the D200 ever came out and its working just fine, but now behind the times. But here's the thing. Like many others I can't afford to upgrade to the latest and greatest and newest. My upgrade would have to be a D300 or D7200 remanufactured or a really good used one with low shutter counts. That's how good Nikon comes in to play for me, because what ever older camera D model I end up with, its a Nikon and its new to me. I had my Ftn film camera for 50 years till I sold it to some other lucky person when I went digital.