Unrepairable Nikon D7000

<p>The ideal solution for such situations would be that Nikon, Canon, any camera manufacturer for that matter, offer an exchange for a fixed amount for a refurbished model. A $400-500 fee along with the damaged camera, in exchange for a refurb would be fair in lieu of attempting a repair.</p>

<p>Skyler,<br>

I can't get over you saying it's in "excellent condition", when Nikon is saying it's "Unrepairable". You crushed it with your car. It's not in excellent condition. It's dead! <br>

I'm sorry, but I rarely feel sorry for people that do not take care of their stuff. Were bad guys chasing you and the camera fell out and you ran over it or some crazy scenario? Probably not...<br>

Your best bet is to take it to some local repair shop (there are plenty of talented techs out there) that could possibly fix it; I doubt it would be for $200, but you never know.<br>

You should be a little more mindful of your sh*t and not run it over. Lesson learned the hard way. </p>

 

<p>[[The ideal solution for such situations would be that Nikon, Canon, any camera manufacturer for that matter, offer an exchange for a fixed amount for a refurbished model. A $400-500 fee along with the damaged camera, in exchange for a refurb would be fair in lieu of attempting a repair.]]</p>

<p>Canon already has this. It's call the Canon Loyalty Program. You send them any broken Canon camera and they give you a good deal on a refurbished one of your choice. Example: Refurbished 7D from the Canon Store is currently $1359. By using the Loyalty Program you can get a Refurbished 7D for $1087. Refurb 60D currently $800, becomes $640 with the Loyalty Program.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sridip, if you had read the post you would know its not my camera....I just picked it up cheap for the accessories and thought I might have a shot at getting it repaired. I've owned countless high end video cameras, DSLRs and other expensive photo\video equipment that I have taken everywhere from Tibet to Venice. I am professional and my own gear is very well taken care of. The only time I've ever had to send in a product for repair that was directly my fault was shooting in the desert, a dust protector broke and I had to get the shot, but the client paid for the internal\external cleaning bill.</p>

<p>You only mention it wasn't your camera when it was damaged in your third post, not your first one.<br>

Odds are who ever gave you the initial $200 quote didn't notice the deformed body either.</p>

<p>Sort of like, my car won't start, looks like the battery is dead. When the reason is the engine is almost seized from running out of oil, and the started motor can barely turn it over. One is a $200 repair including the tow, the other is a $5,000 engine rebuild or replacement.</p>

I think it is simple. You run it over with a car, it's rooted

<p>The question I have after reading this story is, I think, the same question the OP must have had:<br>

What is the value of a repair estimate, charged to his credit card no less, that was clearly so wrong that one must wonder if anyone really looked at the camera in any serious way prior to charging for a repair that could not be done.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, as the saying goes, "that sucks". However, modern cameras are not very good as wheel chucks. As others have already pointed out, a myriad of problems can result from such a traumatic event. If you had a laptop run over by a car, it would be about the same. It doesn't matter how "new" it is. If you drove a new car off the lot and it gets totaled (like the camera) -- it ain't "like new."<br>

So, suck it up, and get another one, and never, ever, leave a camera where it can be run over by a car. Around your neck or in a bag around your shoulder are the places for it. </p>

<p>Initial estimates are just that. Not too much stock should be put in them. They are based on a relatively cursory inspection.</p>

<p>I at one time worked in the auto body business.<br>

I have seen cars that had relatively little external damage get totalled because of hidden damage which only showed after inspection. Sometimes after repairs had begun, usually at the stage where dismantling in preparation for repair had begun, the extent of actual damage made itself apparent, and a new estimate had to be prepared. That usually meant a large increase in repair cost, as hidden damage is often structural. It often resulted in a repair being revised into a total by the insurance company.</p>

<p>So it's not surprising to me that a low initial estimate can end up being revised dramatically upon actual inspection by the repair person.</p>

<p>I think that people hear "run over" and think OMG, this idiot put his camera on the Indie 500 track and picked up 1000 pieces.<br>

<br />To give you an idea, the camera had the kit 18-105 lens on, which as many of you know is plastic mount, the lens was entirely unharmed, and functions perfectly. Matter of fact on close inspection, it does not appear that the camera was completely run over, but just that the driver felt resistance and backed off the camera. I do think it appears that the metal frame is warped slightly, and it was cited by Nikon as the sole cause for being "unrepairable". I am no expert, I think the photos below from a novices point of view, show zero damage to the shutter box, lens mount, LCDs, flash, etc. (I intentionally put the flash up to illustrate there is no damage too it, but it does close and remain closed just fine, with zero signs of any kind of pressure being on it). Given that Nikon listed the parts necessary for repair and that no mention of the shutter, LCDs, flash, and\or sensor is listed, I find this to be very good evidence that these observations are accurate.</p>

<p>A friend once had a Nikon camera fried, so just for fun we tore into it and completely disassembled the entire camera, (it was a DSLR-modeled point and shoot). Striped it of every electronic board, lens everything. I'm keenly aware that a huge amount of pressure from a large object could easily be felt internally on the other side of the camera, and that everything is really crammed in there, but I really don't see that many repair parts listed on Nikon's invoice. The primary part is the metal frame, which presumably is "bent\warped". While I listened carefully and respect everyone's opinion, I think its worth a second shot and a nominal shipping cost for one final evaluation. If it's still unrepairable, perhaps I'll talk the repair company into buying the camera from me for parts :).</p>

<p>Thanks again Rich for recommending Precision Camera. They offered me a free evaluation, and they seem to be a very reputable company. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say.</p><div></div>

<p>And the rear</p><div></div>

<p>@ Jeff Livacich<br>

I agree that initial estimates can and do get revised. I just wonder how often you revised an auto repair estimate <em><strong>after the customer agreed to and paid for the repairs</strong></em>.<br>

If Nikon feels that they need customer approval and payment in advance of performing repairs, it seems to me that they should be "looking under the hood" a bit more carefully before they charge someone for the service.<br>

As Ariel's link shows, these repair charges are grouped into catagories - they are not specific to the actual repairs being made (unlike your auto repair example). In the OP's case, the repair was more expensive, so Nikon gives the money back. I bet I know what happens when the repair is less.<br>

This is one example of why Nikon repair and customer service enjoys a relatively poor reputation.</p>

 

<p>A couple of years ago I took my 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 to Nikon El Segundo (Los Angeles) for repair. It was mounted on my D700 on a tripod but a gust of wind blew it over, and the lens hit hard rock. For two months I thought everything was working fine, until I tried manual focus and the focus ring was very stiff.</p>

<p>Since I was there in person, the clerk took a look at the lens and told me that they needed to replace the helicoid. Minimum repair cost was $450, but if they opened it up and found more serious damages, it would be $550 or more. Because it was face to face, everything was very clear and I declined repair on the spot. That lens is working perfectly fine as long as I use AF, which is what I use almost 100% of the time anyway. Later on that year, I bought version 2 of that lens and to this day, I still own both. I considered that I had applied the repair cost towards a better lens.</p>

<p>When you ship something to Nikon for repair, there will always be a return shipping cost regardless there is actual repair or not. (Roughly $15 or so in the US.) It makes sense that Nikon verifies that your credit card is valid.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However the camera was not mine, I picked it up cheap for the accessories (battery, charger) and figured I would give a shot at having it repaired.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might just be me but this leads me to suspect the original owner may have indicated Nikon would charge ~$200 to fix it and so you bought the camera thinking it a great deal.</p>

<p>Enough people here have tried to explain the logic behind Nikon's refusal but you're unwilling to realize that a camera RUN OVER BY A CAR <em>can</em> be damaged enough to be rendered useless, despite whatever visual flaws exist in your crime scene photos.</p>

<p>You need to let this one go and put your energy and tenacity back into photography.</p>

<p>If the metallic frame is bent, as it seems, chances are the sensor is off alignment. From a non-initiated point of view, it seems fixing that camera possibly involves dismounting the whole camera, replacing the Mg-alloy frame (possibly cheapper than rebending it into position), mounting the electronics and then check for the optical alignment.</p>

<p>Can it be done? Yes. What would be the cost of that? I dunno, $700 if nothing else is broken? Also, you wouldn't have the certainty that the camera performed as new after such an expensive repair.</p>

<p>Disregarding all the above reasons to either repair or junk the camera, if it were me even if the camera was repaired I don't think I would ever trust it again to perform as new. And if you can't trust your camera, what good is it?</p>

<p>Dan, the original owners were a rich couple who could care less, they went right out and bought a new one, and basically wanted to give this one away. Thanks for the advice. Thankfully I have plenty of time to put my energy and tenacity in photography and see if I cannot produce a usable camera out this too :).</p>

<p>Shun, and if your 70-200 had both AF & MF damaged in the fall making it an effective paper weight and nothing more, would you have attempted the repair then?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, and if your 70-200 had both AF & MF damaged in the fall making it an effective paper weight and nothing more, would you have attempted the repair then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skyler, that is a completely hypothetical question. If my 70-200 were damaged to an extend such that it is completely non functional, and the repair cost is like 70% of the replacement cost (buying another used one in similar, pre-damage condition, not buying a brand new one) or higher, I would much rather bite the bullet and buy another undamaged lens. As I wrote earlier:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't bother to fix a D7000 if the repair cost is as high as $800. I don't believe that a camera that requires such an extensive repair will ever be as good as new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Essentially <a name="00ZxGx"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5693845">Miguel Martinez</a>, <a name="00ZxHm"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4968340">Ted Raper</a>, and I are saying the same thing: when a product requires such an extensive repair, I don't believe it will ever be return to excellent condition. That is especially true for cars. When a car is seriously damaged in an accident and then repaired, the structure might not be completely sound any more and it could really be dangerous should it get into another subsequent accident. For cameras, at least you don't need to worry about safety, but I would never trust that camera any more.</p>

<p>Of course its a completely hypothetical question Shun, everything we have discussed on this forum concerning the broken camera has been hypothetical, has it not? I've weighted everything everyone has to say, I find that $10 for a second opinion is a reasonable investment. I accept the fact that it may not be 100% functional. I am encouraged, though, that after suffering major damage, that your lens still works excellent, so much so that you still use it to this very day. Obviously you trust it, or you wouldn't still own it, so there is hope that lenses\cameras that sustain major damage can indeed still function properly, in your case, even without repair.</p>

<p>Skyler, unfortunately, you made the wrong assumption. I wouldn't consider my 70-200 suffered "major damage." In fact, as far as I am concerned, there was no damage since I don't care about manual focus at all on that particular lens. It took me 2 months before I had manually focus it and then I realized the problem.</p>

<p>By then version 2 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 was introduced and I tested a sample and was really impressed. So rather spending $500 to fix the early version, I bought the 2nd version and have never used the old 70-200 again in over a year. However, since I do a fair amount of camera and lens testing, I thought that I might as well hold onto the old lens for comparison purposes. If I need to sell it some day, I'll make a full disclosure to the buyer. If someone else also doesn't care about manual focus, they can benefit from buying my lens and save a couple hundred dollars. I think that really beats paying $500 for a fix that is not really necessary.</p>

<p> If you get a new camera to replace this, immediately buy a rider insurance policy on your camera equipment. It is only about $ 1 for every $ 100 of value covered. Are you sure that the auto policy will not cover this accident.</p>

<p>DaveO</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you get a new camera to replace this, immediately buy a rider insurance policy on your camera equipment. It is only about $ 1 for every $ 100 of value covered. Are you sure that the auto policy will not cover this accident.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to the OP, the damaged D7000 was someone else's camera and was damaged by its original owner. The OP on purpose bought a damaged camera apparently at a very low price in an attempt to benefit from that. I don't think any insurance he may have would cover this situation, ever.</p>

<p>Having insurance for the new (replacement) camera isn't an issue and is a good idea. Even if the original owner's insurance of some sort covered this, you'd still have the issue of deductibles and the fact that upon appraisal, it was "totaled." The company would write a check for whatever amount might be appropriate under the terms of the policy and not get into trying to repair it instead. I suppose someone could try to pay a repair facility to repair it but it seems likely to be a money sink. Lots of people repair/restore items for fun or hobbies that wouldn't otherwise be economical to fix. I suppose you could let the facility off the hook for it actually functioning correctly after they get finished and pay as long/as much as you want.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Exactly what happened with me now!I I send my D7000 to Nikon Mellsville NY, it was charged,I paid with my credict card 300 dls and after weeks waiting for it , I received a letter from Nikon saying,beyond repair... and nothing worked after a complain only a refund of the money I paid...Shame on Nikon!</p>