tomcat

I don't know the whole story, but one thing I have learned in my 69 years. NEVER EVER use UPS for shipping anything of value. My company has had 100% success rate with FedEx because we got tired of receiving damaged goods from UPS shipments and also having to resend/reimburse customers from UPS shipments early on in our company lifecycle. Now we only ship and specify FedEx.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

He did say that he received a bill, which generally follows work being completed... we may be splitting hairs here, but he said he had to pay to get his camera back now. Which again implies that they did work on it he didn't authorize. If they had not done the work, he could say just return my camera without paying any bill, right. If it as pre repairs I would think the OP would refer to it as an estimate.

The strange thing to me also is why two bills, I would think both repairs would be on one bill for the one camera. That to me seems a little odd. Anyone else get multiple bills for one item repair from Nikon. Guess I am glad I have Canon gear after following this thread.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The OP hasn't come back either that I see with any more info. Since they haven't checked back in, this whole thread is suspect. As one person noted earlier, we were only given one side of the story and to accept that as verbatim is not smart as there are two sides to every story.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Nikon has done nothing wrong. Nikon never sent him a picture, he generated it along with a false post. And every one here fell for it. What a monster troll he turned out to be. And, as predicted, everyone here sided with him against Nikon. Nikon was judged guilty even before the facts were in. So typical of a group response to a lie.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

did you insure it at the P.O.? if so put in a claim

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

He trolled you. This never happened.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Iven if we were trolled. It was interesting because we all expect that to happen.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Th OP had another post reporting problems with errors on his D750 back in February. He is a professional photographer and has his web site listed in his profile. I don't think he is a troll. Maybe he resolved the issue or is busy working.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

True. Marc Maron made a joke about it on the Tonight Show. He said you could say almost anything, like they decided to use the Grand Canyon as a giant land fill. And people would say no, that's not possible. But then would think about it and say, well maybe.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I hardly think everyone here side with him against Nikon.
Maybe you are the Troll...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

My cameras and lenses are insured. If anything like this happened to me my insurance would pay. No hassle. Well worth the 1% a year.

jdedmonds

When I sent a lens to Nikon for repair, it was returned after repair with documentation that included, inter alia, a sort of "intake sheet" on which Nikon had the opportunity to make note of any damage that I did not declare. This document in my package was left blank because the lens was not externally damaged and the autofocus didn't work. Maybe the written materials your order generated will have the same area without comment upon intake.

Ed Walker Loc: Eclectic, Alabama U.S.A.

I had a similar situation with Canon repair. I sent them a functioning EOS 1Dx for cleaning & routine maintenance. They first quoted about $300, then a day later it was $600, then a couple of days later they said there was water damage and it would be over $1200. I refused & they sent back a non-functioning camera. I spent several days talking to Canon folks, up to a VP. I was finally offered anything they sold for 1/2 price, but they still maintained no responsibility for my camera. I had no real choice, so opted for a 5DSR at 1/2 price. I THINK what happened was someone in repair damaged the sensor but wouldn't own up to it and blamed it on water damage. Like you, I have too much invested in Canon equipment to change.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

N90 screen?

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Nikon didn't do any repairs, they informed the OP that it was going to cost $300 to do ANY repairs and refused (which is their right) to perform the recall modifications until the repairs could be done at the same time. Before jumping on a bandwagon, you NEED to try reading the agreement that was "signed" by the user when they sent the camera in. It states that the user will be charged for ANY modifications and repairs OUTSIDE of those required for the recall and in order for the recall modifications to be performed the OP agrees to pay for those repairs. If the damage in the photo was on the OP's camera and not done by Nikon (and based on the photo it is unlikely to be caused by Nikon during the opening of the shipping container), then the OP is required to pay for those additional repairs BEFORE Nikon can begin to perform their recall modifications. If your car was being recalled for an airbag issue and you totaled the car in a wreck the month before the recall, would you expect the manufacturer of the car to completely rebuild your destroyed car as part of the airbag recall? Of coarse not. The manufacturer would REQUIRE that the car be completely repaired PRIOR to performing the recall modifications. OTHERWISE, the car manufacturer could be blamed for ALL of the damage to the car when they did nothing. This appears to be EXACTLY the same thing. Nikon received a camera in their receiving dept. When the box was opened, the camera was photographed (to protect Nikon from fraudulent claims) as proof of the ORIGINAL condition and found that their was damage (not related to the recall issue). Nikon is insisting that the pre-existing damage be repaired BEFORE Nikon begins the recall modifications. This is not only their right but also common sense. EVERYTHING on here is a bunch of people wanting to blame Nikon for something that any of the users would expect their own company to do if they were running it. REMEMBER that Nikon is NOT a government institution. Nikon is a publicly owned company that has stock holders whose investment it is required to protect. Yes, I own Nikon Stock, and I am pleased to see that Nikon USA is doing what they are expected to do. They found evidence (prior to doing anything but opening the package) of a camera with damage NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL, and as per their agreement that the OP agreed to by shipping the camera to them, is requiring that the additional repairs be paid for PRIOR to Nikon beginning ANY modifications or recall repairs to the camera. IF NIKON DID ANY DIFFERENT, Nikon would be left open to the user doing EXACTLY what the OP is attempting to do here, claiming that NIKON caused the damage that was either done in shipping (unlikely do to the location of the damage) or blaming Nikon for damages that were already on a camera that was included in the recall. I personally and professionally applaud Nikon for looking out for MY (an investor's) money by demanding that a user pay to return a camera to standards BEFORE Nikon does the recall modifications. Also, if you look at the proposed recall repairs, none of the modifications are in the area of the damage. So, what we have here, based on the OPS provided data (which other than in incriminating photo) and weak complaint (The dog ate my homework so I shouldn't have to redo it) others are blaming Nikon instead of looking at the realities. IF this was a contractor that you hired to put shingles on your house, and the contractor found that the roof was so deteriorated that the shingles would just fall through, wouldn't you expect the contractor to tell you that they wouldn't put the shingles on until the rest of the roof structure was brought up minimum standard first? This is common sense and everyone is complaining that Nikon is wrong for saying, "we cant fix shingles until the roof decking is repaired. The op has 2 options. He needs to either provide better supporting data or pay to make repairs that were NOT included in the recall. People here are blaming Nikon for something that is doing EXACTLY what they should do. Personally, I'm glad to see that Nikon is looking after my financial investment in their company.