The "Unrepairable": Repairable!

<p>So a couple of months ago I posted a question about a D7000 that had been run over, (that's right someone put the camera behind the car, in a soft case and it got backed over), sent to Nikon for repair and they sent it back deeming it "unrepairable". So I got on the forum and made this post:</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Zwn6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Zwn6</a></p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The majority of photo.net members basically said you tried, now its time to put it to good use as a paper weight. I was really depressed because the outside damage was minimal and the camera was only 2 weeks old, less than 25 shutter count. They said it didn't matter it had been run over and would now cost thousands of dollars to repair.</p>

<p>In the end, based on a recommendation from Rich Peret (Thank you, Thank you, so very very much Rich for recommending Precision Camera), I decided the $10 it would cost to have the camera mailed in was worth it for a second opinion. It took Precision Camera 2 months because its hard to get parts out of Nikon since the natural disasters but this morning I received the camera back in 100% brand new functional condition and the repair cost was $314, a mere $100 over what Nikon had originally quoted.</p>

<p>After doing some tests the camera functions flawlessly and is basically brand new.</p>

<p>For those of you out there who have an "unrepairable" camera, I just wanted to say I think its worth your time get a second opinion. Despite being run over, the shutter, sensor, mirror box, LCD, actually the entire camera except the processor, and top frame were in Aok condition and did not require repair\replacement. Keep in mind being "run over" means "backed over" at 3MPH while inside of a soft camera case, so basically the best possible "run over" scenario. While I realize I am a very blessed man and I was a lucky one, I think those of you who have received an "unrepairable" camera back from Nikon should at least get a second opinion, heck its $10-20 to send it in, and if they do find it unrepairable Precision will send it back free of charge. Whats a $10 or $20 investment to see if you can get your camera back for hundreds vs having to spend thousands on a new camera?<br>

<br />To those of you who have a broken camera, unrepairable or not, you have my sympathies, hopefully this post will be positive reminder cameras can be repaired, at least some of the time :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>The majority of photo.net members basically said you tried, now its time to put it to good use as a paper weight. I was really depressed because the outside damage was minimal and the camera was only 2 weeks old, less than 25 shutter count. They said it didn't matter it had been run over and would now cost thousands of dollars to repair."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skyler, I'm glad you were able to resolve your camera repair satisfactorily.</p>

<p>It would have been natural for respondents of your initial post to offer a more realistic assessment given the nature of the accident, albeit speculative. You were indeed lucky and likely to be among the rare exception given the commonly expected repair charges for dslr cameras, and the expected damage from such an accident. </p>

<p>None the less Michael, it raises the question, why couldn't Nikon repair it? Obviously it was a repairable camera, and for a quarter of the cost of a new one, so why didn't Nikon just charge me $300 to repair it? That's my point here, that if you've had a camera that's deemed "unrepairable" maybe its really just above Nikon's price point for repairing things, or maybe its a lazy tech, or a poor evaluation; its worth $10-$20 bucks to see if your camera is really "unrepairable" (assuming it wasn't a semi truck doing 60MPH that ran over your camera).</p>

<p>You have a point, Skyler. Did Precision Camera list their work on the invoice? It'd be interesting to know exactly what they did to repair the camera. </p>

<p>While I truly hope that you have no future issues with your camera, there is always the possibility that something else will fail because of this incident. Perhaps the reason Nikon didn't want to fix it was that they felt that there could be hidden damage that would cause issues for you in the future. Based on your description of the damage, it really doesn't sound like there was a lot of damage to begin with</p>

<p>In any case, congratulations on a great deal and good luck with your "new" camera!</p>

<p>Was the camera on concrete when it was run over, or dirt ?</p>

<p>It has been my experience that Nikon will always refuse to repair equipment that they feel cannot be brought back to the original specifications.</p>

<p>An independent repair shop is likely not to function within that constraint, and more likely can return the equipment to a useful but not perfect condition.</p>

<p>I assume Nikon backed out of the repair because they would be spending far to much of their own time, effort, and materials to make any money off it. That, coupled with them probably expecting you to buy a new Nikon camera which is profitable for Nikon.</p>

<p>The only answer to every question in this world is money. :)</p>

<p>Yes, Precision's invoice lists "Top Housing and associated parts", "Front Housing and Associated Parts", and "Main Flex Circuit and CPU". It is difficult to say if the metal frame was replaced; that was the reason Nikon deemed it unrepairable.</p>

<p>I'm not poo-pooing photo.net members; I'm trying to encourage people to take a damage evaluation with a grain of salt and use common sense, even when many well respected posters here think otherwise. I nearly didn't send it back in based on what some photo.net members said, but then again it was the positive experiences that some members shared that convinced me it was worth a shot for the cost of postage. Hence the reason this forum is so valuable, its wide range of opinions ;)</p>

<p> After July 13th independent repair centers will no longer be able to obtain Nikon parts for repairs. I am glad you were able to get your camera repaired however. </p>

<p>Elliot, Thank you :). Yes this is true, I will now be selling this model because I'm so pleased with the D800 I'm going to get a 2nd so this camera has got to go. Of course I'm selling it with full disclosure and the repair does come with a 2 month warranty. Even so, for $300 vs throwing it away, I would have it repaired to give to one of the promising young photographers I know that can't really afford a mid range DSLR.</p>

<p>Richard, I was told it was in the garage, so I'm assuming concrete, keep in mind it was a large Nikon soft case. The repair shop stated that "a complete repair and all functions were returned to factory specs" and it is warranted as such for 2 months.</p>

<p>Patrick, That's my point! Nikon may not have repaired the camera because it was not economically feasible for them, although it maybe for you, which is the reason an "unrepairable" camera may in fact be repairable by someone else for a very reasonable cost. Something to keep in mind if you ever have to send a damaged product into Nikon for repair</p>

<p>Ah Yes, I forgot about that Ross, good point, I was just in time then! Sadly what we will do when Nikon deems our camera's "unrepairable" in the future? :(</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"After July 13th independent repair centers will no longer be able to obtain Nikon parts for repairs." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A more accurate statement would read:</p>

<ul>

<li><em>After July 13th only authorized independent repair centers will be able to obtain Nikon parts for repairs.</em></li>

</ul>

<p>Granted the options for repair will be <strong>far fewer</strong> after July 13 than exist now, but Nikon USA will not be the <strong>only</strong> option.</p>

<p>And FWIW I think the direction Nikon USA is taking with respect to supplying repair parts stinks, and I don't accept the statements released as the reason for the policy change as forthright or completely genuine.</p>

<p>Glad to hear that this one worked out so well for you Skyler.</p>

<p>This may not be the best of responses, but do you have homeowner's insurance?</p>

<p>Spending</p>

<p>$1,200 for your D7000 body</p>

<p>$10.00 to ship it for repair</p>

<p>$324.00 to get it fixed</p>

<p>which is kind of costly for something you could not use from 31 Jan. 2012, to 24 or 25 April 2012.</p>

<p>Best of luck in finding a buyer.</p>

<p>Wow, what a coincidence. I just sent a D300 to Nikon that is in perfect working order (or so it seems) requesting a internal and external cleaning and calibration check. The camera was dropped once and has a couple dings along the rear bottom, which I made clear did not matter to me.<br>

I requested a 2nd estimate in case any additional repair(s) were needed or recommended. I received one estimate for $220 which I approved.<br>

Without further contact with me, they sent the camera back, without the body cap and eyepiece and told me it was beyond repair. They made good on the body cap and eyepiece, but left a bad taste in my mouth as to their lack of correspondence.<br>

I guess I have to go to a reputable repair shop and get it cleaned, or I will just clean the sensor as I have in the past, and blow the sucker out with my Giottos Rocket.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Precision's invoice lists "Top Housing and associated parts", "Front Housing and Associated Parts", and "Main Flex Circuit and CPU"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "Main Flex Circuit and CPU" part would make me nervous if I was a repair shop. Replacing the parts might fix it, and it appears to have been the case, but there might be hidden fractures in associated circuit boards or components that might surface much later.</p>

<p>Nikon is liable for the post repair warranty period, but they are also held ethically responsible should the repair become a nightmare if it becomes an endless problems and returned multiple times due to the initial accident.</p>

<p>Their refusal to repair is likely more about potential headaches down the road for the same reasons insurance companies will write-off an accidented vehicle as salvage but unscrupulous repair shops will put it back on the road after shoddy repairs. </p>

<p>I don't think it's about repair profits. It's more likely policy. </p>

<p>Michael, I think its really noble and all that you are standing up for Nikon, I think its a great company and for the most part I've been happy with their repair services; I've got over $20,000 worth of Nikon equipment as we post and I wouldn't have such a significant investment into a system if I didn't feel strongly about the repair facilities.</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree with your point though, because Nikon called me to approve the repair costs, and they told me they were going to replace the CPU. After they approved the repair, and after they had started repairing the camera was when the decided to send it back as "unrepairable" and they made no mention of electronics but specifically stated it was unrepairable because of the magnesium alloy frame damage. Maybe that was just an excuse, but Nikon knew the CPU would require replacement and they were prepared to service it anyways. Nikon only warrants there repairs for 2 months, so I can't really see them being terribly worried about incidents down the road (this isn't my first rodeo with a D7000 in the repair shop).</p>

<p>I don't know why Nikon couldn't repair it for $200 and Precision could for $300. Since I was called by and approved a repair from Nikon after they had evaluated the camera in their shop, I suspect maybe it was a mistake, lazy tech, or maybe they knew they couldn't get the parts for months on end and the policy was to send it back when a delay on parts is open ended (if this were the case though I would be very disappointed Nikon didn't say something to that effect). Perhaps Precision really did go out on a ledge and used unethical methods to repair the camera, however they've been in business a very long time, and their primary business is repair, and I did do some research, they are quite reputable. They are also much smaller and probably have a lot less overhead than Nikon does. Maybe they did take my frame and bend it back into place, but it works, and it works well, so I would rather have that than a paper weight. A friend of mine bought a new D7000 and out of the box it had both hot pixels on the sensor and blueish\green blobs on the screen, so my point is, any camera has the potential to fail, maybe this one more so since its been repaired, maybe not. For a $300 investment I think its worth it in the long run, if it was an $800 repair I would have said no thank you, not only because of the extent of the damage, but also because at that point it would be worth it to pay an extra $400 and get a new one with warranty.</p>

<p>I certainly do not think that Nikon does such things on a regular basis; I'm not saying people shouldn't send their cameras in, I'm talking about the few people who fall between the cracks. I realize my scenario was a probably a very rare one, too expensive for Nikon to look at, but still reasonable from another repair shop.</p>

<p>I can't believe that Nikon didn't cover it as a warranty repair--I mean who hasn't run over their DSLR at some point?!? lol!<br>

Seriously, I'd say that's a pretty strong testament to the build quality of the "pro-sumer" D7000!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jerry this camera was purchased damaged at a very low price, I figured I had my money in the brand new, unused accessories, & mostly undamaged parts (like LCD, mirror box, prism, etc, etc, etc) if I couldn't get the camera repaired and if I could it would make an excellent backup, so insurance was\is a moot point.</p>

<p>My personal equipment is kept in a pelican hard case that is has traveled with me around the world. An 18-wheeler could run over my Pelican Case doing 60MPH and I'm convinced my camera would be totally fine ;). Normally the shoots I've been on insure everything including gear, but now that I'm getting out on my own starting my own business and since I've acquired some expensive pieces lately (like the 300mm F/2.8 and a pair of D800s that are, sadly on back order), I've been getting several insurance quotes. Since these cameras are used for business my home owners insurance won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. </p>

<p>As we said all along, as long as it is a human-made object such as cameras, things are essentially always repairable. The question is whether it is economical to repair. I assume that we are talking about Precision Camera Repair in Connecticut. They are among Nikon USA authorized repair shops: <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Nikon-Authorized-Repair-List.page">http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Nikon-Authorized-Repair-List.page</a></p>

<p>However, $314 seems to suggest a minor to mid-level repair job. It doesn't sound like they changed a whole lot of parts and spent a lot of time, perhaps 2, 3 hours tops. Hopefully the repair is 100% good.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I will now be selling this model because I'm so pleased with the D800 I'm going to get a 2nd so this camera has got to go. Of course I'm selling it with full disclosure and the repair does come with a 2 month warranty.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are going to sell it, definitely provide a fully disclosure. It sounds like you bought a damaged camera for pennies and spent $314 plus some shipping to repair. Most likely you are going to a nice profit. Personally, I wouldn't buy a used camera with this history.</p>

<p>So Skyler, does this also mean you have finally received your D800?</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

Yep, that's the one. Precision Camera Repair in Connecticut.</p>

<p>And that's whats so strange Shun, seems like if Precision could have repaired it for $300, Nikon could have too. Even assuming Precision cut corners, why couldn't of Nikon come back with a $500 quote? The physical damage on the outside suggested a minor to mid-level repair, and that's what Nikon said when they originally evaluated it too.</p>

<p>Of yes, of course, I would do no less. A fair profit, but I do expect it to sell less than other used models due to repair. Yes, but personally I would never buy a used camera period, unless I personally knew the owner (unless it was a a side project like this one and not a primary camera used every day). I'm very picky about my cameras, but then I am about all of my photography gear.</p>

<p>Nope, talked to the local camera store that I've been on pre-order since February and they said they aren't getting any more in till middle of next week. Got to play with one for a while and it didn't take that long for me to be very impressed. While I'm sure the D800 has its flaws, I feel I've been working around the sub-professional level of the D7000, not image quality which I'm happy with, but the lack of weather sealing, AF, which is in my humble opinion sub-professional, I miss full frame, and little things like the easy to bump scene mode dial. It was really hard to go from the D3s to the D7000, I felt for a long time I missed a lot of shots due to fiddling with the camera, and even now in the right environment I could shoot like no tomorrow with the D3s, but I'm always fiddling with something on the D7000 that doesn't work quite how its supposed to. So at least the D800 will solve most of those grips, I'm sure I'll be on here in the future though griping about something or other I would like to see different on the D900 ;)</p>