Buy the DSLR extended warranty???

[annbryan]

I don't normally go for extended warranties of any kind. I just wanted to do a

quick survey of DSLR owners out there: For those who bought extra

warranty...was it worth it? For those who didn't buy it, did you require any

costly repairs after the Nikon warranty was expired?

Thanks a lot for the help!

-bryan

 

ps - to extend the warranty by 2 years here in Canada, it'll cost $140 CDN.

[Jerry_]

If the company selling the warranty lets you buy it at 11 months and 28 days after you bought the camera, it is a good deal. Why pay money today to duplicate the warranty in effect during the first year you own the camera? Some states (Florida, for one) have consumer laws that make such warranties a no-no. Canada law is different....

[eric friedemann]

Here are the pros and cons:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IOdb

[zafran]

My recommendation is to do so. DSLR's are complex instruments and do break down more than we would like. It has happened to me and the warranty, in place was very much welcome.

 

Generally, I pass on warranties. But not for higher-end DSLRs.

 

Nikon user btw.

 

Regards,

 

- Fred

[ShunCheung]

In Canada, don't you automatically get a two-year warranty? If so, IMO it is a bad idea to buy any warranty on top of that. Any DSLR over 2 years old is a bit out of date. If your camera breaks after that, you have a perfect excuse to upgrade.

[annbryan]

Yeah, the camera comes with a two year warranty. An extra $140 to make it a 4 year warranty. I guess I basically have to decide weather I'm content having the camera for just two years (worst case scenario) or weather I'm willing to invest another $140 to ensure I have it for 4 years. Does the coverage of extended warranties vary depending on who sells it to you? If they're willing to take it in and clean it for me all the time then it might be worth it. The extended warranty also extends the price protection guarantee to 45 days so if there's any price drops I get a refund.

?

[johnw63]

"Any DSLR over 2 years old is a bit out of date. If your camera breaks after that, you have a perfect excuse to upgrade."

 

Must be nice, Shun.

 

If I plunked down over a grand for a camera, I darn sure hope I can still use it longer than 2 years.

[ShunCheung]

<I>If I plunked down over a grand for a camera, I darn sure hope I can still use it longer than 2 years.</I>

<P>

Precisely. I would never buy any SLR/DSLR if I feel that it cannot last 4, 5 years. I have been using Nikon for 30 years with 9 new bodies. The only one that has ever broken down was an F4, and that happened over 10 years into my ownership. To me, there is absolutely no point to buy any extended warranties, ever. If I feel that a product is so fragile that it deserves buying an extended warranty for, I would not buy that product in the first place.

<P>

My point is that in the unlikely event that your new DSLR breaks in its 3rd or 4th year, use the opportunity to upgrade. I would never throw that $140 down the drain for something that will depreciate rapidly. In 2, 3 years, your $1000 DSLR today will worth at best half that much, so it doesn't make sense to spend $140 now to protect a $500 DSLR down the road.

Think about how much money I have saved for not buying any extended warranty for those 9 Nikons, the last 2 being DSLRs: my D100 is 4.5 years old and my D2X 1.5.

[photo5]

Shun, I am somewhat offended by your tone in your post above. You're just a little too

adament that You are Right. This tone shows up in a lot of your other posts as well.

 

You have the right to your own opinion, but how about sharing it in a more pleasant manner?

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Dave

[steve_levine]

In four years, your new DSLR will be obsolete, and used as doorstop/paperweight. Just kidding. But save your money, those things are great for the salesman, not so good for the consumer.

[nolan_ross]

I did not buy it for mine. I think the extended warranty is a racket and have never bought one. As far as obsolete goes a good camera is not likely to become obsolete.

[ShunCheung]

Dave Lee: I certainly have a strong opinion on this issue. A recent Consumer Reports study points out that pretty much all extended warranties are bad deals for the consumer. My experience with Nikon products clearly validates that point.

 

Otherwise, I stady by what I wrote earlier.

[fred aspen]

From a quality standpoint, the failure rate curve is very much shaped like a bathtub and is referred to as "the bathtub curve."

 

Infant mortality failures occur very early in the life cycle of the item. That's why warranties are there for the first one or two years where manufacturing problems show up fairly quickly.

 

After the warranty expires and you have passed the infant mortality phase, the curve then falls to to near the bottom and goes along for the majority (perhaps 70-80%)of the normal life cycle with very few failures then starts to rise again at the end of its lifespan.

 

You want the coverage at the beginning of the life cycle (mfrs. warranties) and near the end of the life cycle where wear is a major factor.

 

Extended warranties usually are setup to cover failures in the middle where the incidence of failure is very low and the seller of the warranty usually isn't likely to have to provide monies for repairs.

[johnw63]

For the most part I also avoid extended warranties, but....there are some spots where , to

my way of thinking, it is good insurance. An example is a laptop computer. In the LCD is a

series of thin and fragile tubes refered to as the backlight. These are NOT changable. If

they go, the whole LCD need to be replaced. With the replacement cost and labor to do it,

you might as well flush the laptop and get a new one. Since laptops get carted all around

and dropped, the possibility is not insignificant that a backlight could fail. So, for 120

bucks, you can insure your laptop will be worth having for an extra 2 years.

 

Now, in the case of a digital camera, there is a lot of delicate stuff in there as well. Many of

them cost much more than a laptop too. If it were to fail in 2 years, after spending $1200

and above, I would NOT be pleased at all, and even if it was only worth say 5 or 6 hundred

on the open market, I didn't PAY only $600 for it ! I paid full retail. It's value to me is NOT

5 or $600. It is the amount I SPENT on it. So, would I wish I had spent $140 if it died so

soon ? Yes. I would have wished I had. I certianly would not look at this unexpected failure

as a " oportunity to upgrade " . I'd be pissed !

 

I really just think that digital cameras are not rock solid and have a higher failure rate than

a dishwasher or a TV or a vacuum cleaner. They also COST a lot more. ( Good ones anyway

) .

 

I still think it must be nice to have enough expendable cash to just look at this failure as a

good reason to buy a new camera.

[andy a.]

The only people who should be buying extended warranties for anything are those who depend on that item for their livelihood, and a total loss would force catastrophic hardship or bankruptcy. This fact is irrefutable if you accept that warranty/insurance companies take in more money than they pay out in claims.

 

That said, the reason these companies continue to sell policies (besides unseemly tactics exploiting people's fears) is due to humans' disproportionate aversion to loss. A person is happy to pay $100 up front to avoid an unexpected loss of $90 down the road.

 

What's more important? To be rational or to be happy. Ideally, having the knowledge and self-awareness is enough to be both.

[eric friedemann]

"(T)he reason these companies continue to sell policies (besides unseemly tactics exploiting people's fears) is due to humans' disproportionate aversion to loss. A person is happy to pay $100 up front to avoid an unexpected loss of $90 down the road."

 

 

That's asinine:

 

 

1. I don't no any legitimate Nikon dealer that uses "unseemly tactics exploiting people's fears," whatever that means. For instance, on B&H's web listing for the D200 body, Nikon's extended warranty and the Mack warranty are the seventh and eighth accessories shown under the camera, and you have to scroll down to see them. Neither the camera listing, nor the individual warranty listings, contain any editorial comment about the need for, or desireability of, these warranties, let alone language that would "exploit people's fears."

 

 

2. The warranties cost $150 and $80, respectively, for a camera that retails for $1,400. Buy a warranty or don't, but at approximately a tenth to an eighteenth of the purchase price, B&H, Nikon and Mack certainly can't be accused of gouging consumers.

 

 

3. Purchasers aren't "pay(ing) $100 up front to avoid an unexpected loss of $90 down the road." If the CCD craps out on a digital camera

when the camera is out of warranty, you might as well throw the camera in the garbage- a loss of more than $90 for any Nikon DSLR.

 

 

4. As I've pointed out in other threads, I'm a cameraholic and have had more than 20 Nikon film bodies since 1982. Only one, an F3, needed repair work. Setting aside my new D200, I've had two Nikon DSLRs- D100s. Both exhibited hot pixels and needed to be repaired. I'm not pleased about laying out extra $$$ for an extended warranty, but, so far, my personal odds are that the D200 will need work.

 

 

Hopefully everyone else will have better luck with their DSLRs, but, working in a camera store, I see numerous DSLRs needing mainly electrical repairs in and out of warranty. Having been in the photo business for more than 25 years, I may not be as "knowledge(able) and self-aware" as Andy, but there are rational reasons for professionals and non-professionals to buy extended warrantys, just as there are rational reasons for the purchase of other forms of insurance.

[tumble2113]

As Shun mentioned Consumer Reports recomends not buying extended warranties, but it also recomended putting the money aside for when a service call is neccesary. Which no one does and they will be just as upset if/when something happens.

 

Companies do make a profit out of extended arranties, it is a simple fact, they are not offering them to lose money.

 

So the issue is quite simple to me, what is that piece of mind that if something breaks in 4 years worth to YOU. I got the extended warranty because it was part of a package and the whole package was attractive, I did not break out the specifics (It was also on a D50), and it was not 140.00 more than buying it with out it. it was closer to $30.

 

I think Shun makes a good point, you pay 140.00 now to protect something worth 500.00 in two years, if we want to push this logic even further, if the 140 was to earn 5% and the camera was worth 500 after year 2 and 450 after year 3 you are talking about 32 to 38% of the protected value. That is pretty pricey insurance.

 

I recall some lens kit where you got the 70-300 lens and an extended warranty on the camera, not sure the details of it or if they discontinued the deal, but might be worth investigating.

 

Dave was that nice enough :)

[johnw63]

Personally, I think this whole idea that the camera will only be worth say 1/3 of it's retail value is bunk. If I bought the camera for $1500, say and believed when it needed repair ( possibly) in 2 years it was only worth $500 to me, that means it cost me $500 per year to own ! At that rate, it should be "worth" a big ZERO dollars in three years. Should I then toss it in the trash ? It's worth nothing, by this way of thinking. An extended warranty is JUST like insurance. I'm betting it will break in the extended time and the company selling it figures it won't. But to be more precise, I'm buying it so that if my camera breaks in the extended time, I won't have to throw it away and get and upgrade.

 

Let's try an experiment. How many D200 owners are willing to sell their body for $999 ?

[ShunCheung]

John, it looks like you just begin to understand the reality.

 

I'll give you a personal example. In the summer of 2002, I paid $2000 for a brand new D100. Today, a $500 D40 captures much better images than the D100 because of technological advances. I would be lucky to sell the D100 for $300, and I don't really want to use such poor quality any more. The fact that I paid $2000 for the D100 once upon a time is totally irrelevant, except for emotional reasons. And those emotions tend to cloud your judgment.

 

Today, you can easily buy a brand new D200 with Nikon warranty for $1200+:

http://www.nextag.com/Nikon-D200-10-2MP-82196733/prices-html

 

If someone offers me a one-year-old D200 for $999 that they spend $1699 on back then, I'll tell them no thanks, especially since Nikon USA warranties only apply to the original owner anyway.

 

Personally, I set my DSLRs on a 3-year upgrade cycle and I budget it such that I can pay for a new one every 3 years. That is why IMO, a 2-year-old DSLR is near the end of its useful life anyway and in the unlikely event that it is broken, I'll just speed up the upgrade.

 

When Nikon released the D80 a few months ago, I have seen quite a few posts about people upgrading to the D80 from the D50 and D70s, both of which are barely 1.5 years old now. Clearly, plenty of people have much shorter upgrade cycles than mine.

[enigma1]

Acouple of years ago a friend and I bought the same DVD player at the same time. He didn't get extended warranty, I did.

Since then mine has broken 2 times his hasn't ever had an issue. We have both been happy with our decisions on warranty. When I bought it, I looked at my usage, and realised that I would use it alot.

I would look at what you plan to use the camera for. If it's going to be a high use, primary camera then maybe it would be a good idea to get the extra warranty. If its going to be a happy snap with the family then you could hedge your bets and save $140.

When I bought my D80 I did buy the warranty, but I usually do get them. If you don't usually, then maybe for you it would be best not to. I have been around Nikons for 25 years, have owned 3 and been around another 6, and never had issues with any of them.

Mind you in Australia, the warranty is with the shop that sells the product and is transferrable to the next owner.

Enjoy your camera what ever you decide with the warranty.