I don't get this whole argument - maybe it's because as I've gotten older (now 65) I've realized how much I don't know now and never did.

I had a Canon film camera about 12-15 years ago and a Canon xTi a few years ago. All I ever did with them was 'document' vacations and Christmas morning. Now, as I prepare for retirement and in search of a hobby, I've taken photography more seriously.

So, I bought a Nikon D5100 a couple of years ago and just upgraded to a D7100. No real reason for switching from Canon to Nikon other than ergonomics - the Nikon just seemed to make more sense to me in my hands. Kind of a right brain/left brain thing. I liked my Canon cameras and I like my Nikon.

My biggest issue with what is coming out of the camera is my ineptness - I do dumb things like forgetting to check the battery before I leave the house or setting the AF on single when trying to shoot continuous .... stuff like that. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc can't help me with any of that.

If you have an ego about a camera you may have had a pretty easy life so far - eventually, something in your 'real' life will take you down a notch and you'll get over arguing about which camera is better.

(Basil - I'm not referring to you - I'm agreeing with your point)

... which means it was a gray market lens and Nikon fixed it - back to where we started with this.

I only got in this discussion because I believe I have a gray market lens and Nikon fixed it - yet I keep being told by UHH posters that it can't happen ..... but it did. I don't care one way or another because it worked out for me but I can't say that I understand what Nikon's policy REALLY is. My experience differs from what some others are saying.

Bought it from 42nd Street Photo, opted NOT to take the Nikon warranty - I was given a choice. So, one of a couple of things is going on:

1) You're wrong
2) You're right that it was sent to a US company and therefore Nikon didn't care.

I have no idea which it is but if it is option 2) then buying from a place like 42nd Street may not be a bad option (for lenses) - unless you're like me and drop it.

The problem with your theory, or my reading of other HH posters, is that B&H does the same thing but it seems to me that others on here have said if you choose the latter it is considered gray market and won't be fixed. So, I'm a little confused.

I guess there is a 3rd possibility, Nikon screwed up and accidentally fixed my lens.

This does not reflect my recent experience - I sent my gray market lens to the Melville, NY facility (after going through the online service request) and it was repaired. Cost me $226ish - I dropped it. I realize had it been a warranty repair I would have been S.O.L. This happened within the last 4 or 5 weeks.

I keep reading on HH that Nikon won't fix a gray market lens and that has not been my RECENT experience.

I have a gray market 70-300mm Nikon. I dropped it about a month or so ago, sent it to Nikon, and they repaired it - got it back about 10 days ago and it works great.

I believe that Nikon won't do warranty work on gray market lenses but if you are not an idiot, like me, and don't drop them I don't think the risk is too high on a lens. Gray market camera? No way.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0876704.html

Yes, I agree - they suck but then I'm a male so what do I know about women's shoes.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Bullshit

If only we knew the "shooters" ideology .... this looks like the beginning of the fantasy known by some of the "by any means necessary" crowd as the "war on women"!

This may be true for camera bodies but I bought a gray market lens from 42nd Street Photo, dropped it, sent it to Nikon (Melville) and got it back yesterday - fully repaired and working great.

The punch line is it cost me $226 to get it fixed - I saved $185 when I bought it .... I guess dropping it was karma.

This is what I did when I was in my 20s-30s but as time has gone by I have a deeper appreciation for the world around me. I also have a deeper appreciation for time and those times that I want to capture as it may never happen or I'll never see that moment again.

Those things have driven me to want to capture what I'm seeing better than those Kodak Instamatics I used 30 or 40 years ago. I want to get better at photography because it matters more to me now - I think it is called maturity.

The other 2, and very important factors, are I can spend the $$$ on a hobby where I couldn't do that when I was younger. The other thing is I have the time, which I didn't have then. I've actually gravitated to this hobby for something to do that I actually can do.

I'm an X-Ray Tech by background and it is surprising (it shouldn't be but I can be an idiot sometimes) the correlation between photography and radiography. Particularly manual settings - aperture, light, distance, ISO, magnification, contrast, brightness, motion, etc. - all play a role in radiography, also. So, this is a natural place for me to be.

Your comment made me think about phones - I would alter your comment just slightly to;

"kind of like cellphones did as smart phones became more and more prevalent"

The people don't talk on their phones any more - they text and email.

Melville is where my lens went, so that is good!

I had a Tamron 18-270 for 2 days and returned it. My Nikon kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) had better image quality and the auto focus was so slow it was unusable in too many situations.

The AF would "hunt" in anything but bright sunlight and I even had it do it then a couple of times. The slow auto focus meant that you had to be selective about when you could use the lens - which cancels out the reason to have a lens that would be 'do all' lens.

I've read on here from other that have that lens and like it - mystery to me. It may have been me but if so, it was mine and so 'me' didn't work with it - so back it went.

I say this about the Tamron because the new Nikon lens has an even longer zoom range and 'slower' aperture - good luck with that!