Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Validity of Nikon’s quality
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
Dec 8, 2017 13:21:12   #
turp77 Loc: Connecticut, Plainfield
 
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 “


All my Nikon's still working as they should. my D3 has worked the hardest at more than 580,000 actuations still running strong. I do have to say only problem with the D3 is there is a lot of paint worn off, but it isn't a Nikon fault it is from a lot of hard use. I have 49 Nikons in all and they all work. I need one more Nikon to make 50. I do have more than 300 cameras and almost every one works.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 13:41:13   #
cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast
 
Can't say other than I've never had a Nikon failure through N4040, N90, D100, D200, D300 and D800e. Looking forward someday to enjoy the same quality with D850.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 13:47:35   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
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 “

Just ignore an idiot like that, he obviously has no idea what he is talking about and surely does not speak for Nikon! (I would not have given this a second thought)!

Reply
 
 
Dec 8, 2017 14:02:01   #
pmackd Loc: Alameda CA
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
I needed a new water heater a few years ago. The local Home Depot had 3 types (I don't remember the exact numbers, but...) the basic model was $300 and had a 4 year warranty. The next model was $400 and had a 8 year warranty. The top model was $500 and had a 12 year warranty. I talked to a guy I know who does plumbing and heating. He told me that they were all the same water heater. The difference in cost was for insurance. I bought the cheapest one.

I should also mention that I have a water heater in the greenhouse that runs hot water through coils on a table to keep the plant roots warm. A friend gave it to me when he stopped using it for that purpose. He got it when someone gave it to him because they needed a larger one. So for me, it's third hand. I've been using it for 16 years.

I have bought several used tractors. I have never had a problem getting parts to repair most of them. I had a Deere model B, which was manufactured between 1937 and 1952. I had no problem getting parts. (Major parts were available from junkyards, but normal repair stuff was manufactured as needed, although frequently by third parties).

The first tractor I ever bought was new (1988). After 25 years it quit, and parts were not available. I talked to my local repair guy and his take was that repair parts are available for items that need repair frequently enough to warrant making parts to supply them. If an item is very unreliable, people quit using it, so they quit repairing it, so they don't make

parts. If an item is much too reliable and never needs repair, they don't make parts to repair it. You have to hit the sweet spot where the item needs enough repairs to warrant making spare parts, but doesn't need repair often enough to discourage people from pouring money into it. The number of units sold also factors into that.
I needed a new water heater a few years ago. The l... (show quote)


I own seven water heaters, none guaranteed for more than 6 years. They have all lasted more than 10 years. The last one that failed had lasted 16 years.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:13:26   #
Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY
 
burkphoto wrote:
I don't think you'll get more than 25 years worth of functionality out of a D810. But I think you'll WANT only perhaps 5, at most, before GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) sets in.

Lots of folks "just have to have" the latest model when it first comes out. Others skip every other release. The D800 came out in February, 2012. The D810 came out in July, 2014. The D850 came out in September, 2017. D800 users are probably drooling... or already have one, or have ordered one, or simply want one.

The digital camera market has evolved very rapidly since the first dSLR was introduced in the mid-1990s. About a decade ago, a new model came out every 18 months to two years. That has settled down to three or four years, but the new technology developments crammed into modern bodies (especially mirrorless cameras) are more and more impressive.

I think it's THAT sort of planned obsolescence (if you can call it that) that the repair guy was lamenting. The new model is always so good as to be irresistible, while the old one still works, and will for many years if treated kindly.
I don't think you'll get more than 25 years worth ... (show quote)


I have a D800... I'm not drooling over the D850... I don't already have one, I haven't ordered one, and don't really want one right now either. I am happy with what I have as it works as good as it did when I bought it 5 years ago, and is all the camera I need right now.

As far as the OP's question, I truly believe lots of items are built to last a certain period of time now, not like years ago when things were built to last. Case in point, both my Kenmore washer and dryer (purchase together in 1986) died this year, the washer in April and the dryer in September. When I purchased the new ones, both sales people said "Wow, you really got your money's worth out of them. They don't build them to last like that anymore. The life expectancy of new ones is 10-12 years now". Why would manufacturers want stuff to last 30 years? They want to make money and can't do that if products last 30 years or more.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:24:17   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Jakebrake wrote:
Planned obsolescence is built into everything manufactured today. My Mr. Coffee coffee maker bites the dust every three years.


Same here!

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:30:53   #
Robert Bailey Loc: Canada
 
A friend of mine has been repairing home appliances for a living for several decades.
He tells me that today's appliances are built to last no more than 10 years.
If it breaks and it is about 10 years old his advice is to replace it not repair it.
As some have mentioned this was not the case in years gone by.

Reply
 
 
Dec 8, 2017 14:33:44   #
Robert Bailey Loc: Canada
 
Another friend of mine repairs cameras and lenses for a living and has been doing so for 30 years.
He tells me that sadly many manufacturers simply don't stock parts after a certain number of years.
The warranty on the device probably indicates the number of years.
He's had lenses that were only two years old that could not be repaired
because parts were no longer available.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:35:16   #
Robert Bailey Loc: Canada
 
Printer manufacturers are famous for "planned obsolescence".
They simply stop manufacturing the required ink cartridges.
When you can't buy the ink, you're forced to buy a new printer
(or try to find a "refiller" that can refill your old cartridges).

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:58:18   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
You see, this is the perfect place for the entrepreneur to jump in and fill the need. Someone smart enough to invest his money in a product or service to fit our need. Makes us happy and the business owner makes money. Win-win. Isn't capitalism wonderful.
Robert Bailey wrote:
Printer manufacturers are famous for "planned obsolescence".
They simply stop manufacturing the required ink cartridges.
When you can't buy the ink, you're forced to buy a new printer
(or try to find a "refiller" that can refill your old cartridges).

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 14:59:49   #
Robert Bailey Loc: Canada
 
It is my understanding that the key component that usually fails in a digital camera is the shutter box.
Point and shoot cameras can expect to get about 20,000 shots before failing.
Entry level DSLRs can expect to get about 50,000 shots before failing.
High-end DSLRs can get 150,000 to 200,000 shots before failing.
Of course, there are some cameras that will last a longer (or shorter) number of shots.
As someone else has said, it costs about $400 to replace the shutter box.
If you have an entry level camera it is better to replace the whole camera.
If you have a "high-end" camera it is worthwhile to replace the shutter.
A friend of mine with a Nikon D7000 was a prolific shooter
and went through THREE shutter boxes in one year!

Reply
 
 
Dec 8, 2017 15:00:31   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Obsolescence is determined more by the user than the manufacturer IMO. Maybe "maintenance" should be a part of the conversation?

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 15:11:19   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
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 “


No I have not heard any such rumor. And that would be a completely foolish plan for a high end item. It would reduce sales rather than stimulate them.

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 15:22:39   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
I think there are a few factors including design, engineering, component quality, assembly quality and today the fairly rapid advance in technology in many devices. Then there is the use and maintenance of the item. The car my son raced the past couple years has about a 3000hp motor. A forged crankshaft is good for about 100 runs and costs $6500. Pistons maybe 40 runs, rings and connecting rods about 25 to 30 runs. If you look at only the normal maintenance parts for the motor for a season it is about $12000 to $13000. If you are paying a shop to work on the motor you will be paying about $100 per manhour.

Now if things go badly or a mistake is made this can change dramatically. The first time out with the car this year they had a human induced error that took out the flexplate and ruined it, the crank and part of the transmission. About $12000 in damage because of a human error. They only got 4 partial runs out of that crank rated for 100. Now this is what I would put on the upper end of performance but it does point out that no matter how well an item is designed and made there is an expected lifespan. Race cars, cameras, whatever.

The thing we see in so many products is that the cost to repair is in many cases more than it is worth and it is better to replace. Plus technology is in most items driving ever forward. My camera shutter is rated at 400,000 but it could fail at 40,000 or go a million. Part of this can be based on use and sometimes one just gets the low end of the performance curve. Cameras are very complex and in some ways I am surprised that they can be repaired so relatively inexpensively. But one still should weigh whether it is a good investment to repair or just replace.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Reply
Dec 8, 2017 15:29:34   #
adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID
 
Your repairman's statement is a crock. My Nikon F still functions perfectly and my D3100 is 5 year old and working just fine.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.