rick_m.

<p>I am glad this is resolved. I will bow out of this one but not without saying this:</p> <p>Remember from the start that I informed Nikon Customer Service of the mistake and they simply blew me off. Their answer, "sorry about that". I pressed the issue with the rep and said he should report it and, IIR, he did not say he would.</p> <p>On my last run-in with Nikon I did all and more than you did on this. I spoke to two supervisors and called the Nikon USA headquarters myself encountering apathetic people all of the way. I got nowhere. </p> <p>It is nice that you all want to let Nikon off of the hook but because I trusted their website I am still out who knows how much because I delayed sending this lens in for service. How many more people out there think they have a 6 year warranty because they read what we all read? </p> <p>You said this Shun:</p> <blockquote> <p>Rick was simply unhappy about an error (or typo or ambiguity) on one particular Nikon USA web page. Any one of us could have contacted Nikon's customer service, and they acted pretty quickly, within 24 hours. I think everybody agrees that the original wording was wrong or at least ambiguous. Clearly that supervisor Chuck who responded to me agrees.</p> </blockquote> <p>So even you were quick to blow me off as just unhappy about a typo. That is not true and how you could have divined that from my posts, I don't know. Nikon did NOT "act quickly within 24 hours" . You forget that I notified them and they did not ACT at all. But that is my fault because I did not spend the time to get a supervisor on the phone. </p> <p>Now lets set the record straight shall we. You told us you sent an email on the <strong>4th</strong> and copied us here with what you wrote.<br> Then on the 8th you posted:</p> <blockquote> <p>Incidentally, I have not received any replay from Nikon. Last week was WPPI and my contacts were probably busy. And that web site in question has not been updated.</p> </blockquote> <p>On the 11th YOU wrote: </p> <blockquote> <p>I'll make a second attempt to alert them about this confusion on Nikon's web site. But I am not going to keep bringing it up or they may think I am insane. :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>On the 12th you told us that you made a THIRD attempt, this time by phone and you got some supervisor to act. So it WAS NOT 24 hours it was 8 days and three contacts. If you had relied on your initial email and my phone call you and I both know this would still not be fixed. </p> <p>So then you congratulate Nikon for getting a serious customer service problem, and likely case of deceptive advertising corrected in over 10 days after two people make a total of <em>at least</em> two phone calls and sent <em>at least</em> two emails. And one of these people surely must be considered a Nikon insider. You may want to reconsider your 24 hour time frame. </p> <p>I took a lot of abuse in this thread. It will be my last for a long time if not forever. If this is not a forum in which we can talk about the bad as well as panting after the latest fancy lens cap then it does a disservice to all who read it expecting, at the very least, candor. </p> <blockquote> </blockquote> <p> </p>

<p>Just so you know. I registered the lens online. I did not pay much attention to the paperwork. I read that and assumed it was correct so I delayed sending the lens in. I DID call Nikon customer service and they DID NOT fix the error even after I told the representative about the error. </p> <p>I do not believe for a moment that they would be responsive unless pushed. And that is the whole point. Isn't it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'll make a second attempt to alert them about this confusion on Nikon's web site. But I am not going to keep bringing it up or they may think I am insane. :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree. It was nice of you to bring it to their attention. It is up to them what they do with it.</p> <p>You are in good company. Quite a few people here think I am insane too ;)</p>

<p>It would appear that my point about Nikon being somewhat unapproachable is holding true. </p> <p>For Brooks.</p> <p>I assumed that because my lens had a 6 year warranty there was no hurry to send it in for service before that warranty was up. I am not going to make a huge point of that but when the google search turns up the page I posted it does make their seeming apathy(?) unsettling. </p> <p>It would appear they have ignored Shun and possibly B & H as well. </p>

<p>Eric. Frankly your personal attack is just childish. I posted what happened. Nothing more. I affirmed how much I appreciate Nikon time and again. But I dared criticize something that they did. That annoys you. Too bad.</p> <p>It would appear that Shun also agrees that Nikon should fix this problem. He and I seem to be the only ones here who care enough about Nikon to try and make it better. </p> <p>Just exactly who on this forum have I "denigrated"? At worst I suggested that Nikon work to improve their customer service. No doubt Shun has access to people we mere mortals do not have access too. He thought enough of this error to write to them. But for calling attention to it and the off-handed way the call center handled it I am all of a sudden being unfair to Nikon. </p> <p>Thank you Shun for bringing this to Nikon's attention. You did them a favor whether they believe it or not. </p> <p>But you all get your wish. I will drop this. There is no place here for criticism of any of the manufacturers. I see that. I like to participate in discussions that are candid and sometime controversial. This is no place for that.</p>

<p>NPS. Interesting you should mention that. I am not qualified for NPS. Why? Because I own an advertising business in additional to my photography business. When requesting membership Nikon told me that to be qualified I must be acting as a professional photographer full time and not participate in any other businesses. It does not matter that my photos are continuously published and have been for a very long time now. </p> <p>When I was staff on a newspaper there was no reason to belong as my equipment was maintained by the paper through a maintenance contract with a repair facility. I was very pleased not to long ago with Nikon's service on my own equipment and have said so. </p> <p>It is interesting to me that so many people here are so protective of their company of choice that they are willing to try any number of ways to blame me for my experiences. The fault, it appears, lies with trying to post them on the Nikon forum. Clearly the moderator thinks it is my fault that Nikon made a serious mistake. (Which I linked to for all to see by the way.) His solution, rather than to ask Nikon for good service, is to bail on tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and years of familiarity with that equipment and go to Canon. This is a poor recommendation and very rude. </p> <p>So the message is, 'don't come here complaining about Nikon. This forum is for fan-boys'. </p> <p>I will leave it at that. It is time to not renew my subscription anyway. Yet another poster run off by the moderators. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Rick, the only thing that really puzzles me is why you have not switched to Canon a long time ago. To be blunt, you only have yourself to blame to suffer all these problems with Nikon.</p> </blockquote> <p>What nonsense. It is the customer's fault when Nikon can't offer decent customer service? Did you not read my previous posts complimenting Nikon when they did a good job? Did you not read my post (above) where I mentioned what good experiences I had with Nikon before they changed their system? You, of all people, ought to take these problems seriously. That is unless you just want this forum to pant after each new product and rave about how good Nikon service is. Is that what you want?</p> <p>Henry.</p> <p>I am glad you posted here. Look at the link I posted, call your secret Nikon rep (who the rest of us are not allowed to call) and tell him to fix the warranty section of the Nikon website. If Nikon won't listen to B & H they won't listen to anyone. </p> <p>I am not trashing Nikon. Indeed I have been using Nikon cameras for over 40 years. I published pictures taken with Nikon cameras in three different publications this weekend. I want them to be the company they once were. It appears that some people would rather trash me than even consider that their dear Nikon might make a mistake. Consider how easily a trained Nikon employee might have handled this.</p> <blockquote> <p>Me: Your website says 6 years.</p> <p>REP: I am terribly sorry. That is an obvious mistake on our part. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. I will tell the appropriate people so they can fix it. Please consult your warranty card for the correct information. I am sorry for the confusion. Is there anything else I can help you with today? Thanks for being a loyal Nikon customer. </p> </blockquote> <p>No attitude. No condescending tone of voice. No dismissive attitude. A simple apology and polite statement of the terms. But the employee was untrained and his attitude didn't just happen. It was allowed to happen. Nikon can fix this issue as easy as pie. They can train their call center people to simply be better with the customers. But I guess that is my fault. Insert eyeroll here. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>still,..i could see why obviou mistreating could be an issue.<br /> thats what i am saying.<br /> not sure how they'd find out though.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am a photojournalist. This is a "professional" lens. It is not meant to be abused but it is meant to be used hard. I am not sure what you are saying but I do not abuse my equipment. Right? </p> <p>John. </p> <p>I completely agree with you about El Segundo. In the past whenever I sent items to them for repair they were outstanding. I could speak to these very knowledgeable technicians on the phone. They rushed a repair for me on at least one occasion because I had an important gig coming up. I believe I spoke to Melina in those days IIR. (There was another woman there who was very helpful too but I can't recall her name. I wrote a thank you letter to Nikon after she helped me. My experience has changed completely. They have changed their numbers and one can only call into their call center. In a previous thread I detailed their response to a repair issue and it was appalling. I sent them an email asking for advice on a repair and got a simple 'send it in or contact the call center' reply. Your mileage may vary but I can tell you that calling the call center these days gets one a person who is NOT a technician, not knowledgeable and in my experience not very dedicated or even friendly. </p> <p>Contrast this with Canon. At an event just over a week ago, their regional rep greeted me like a long lost friend, offered to show me their whole stable of workhorses, assured me that CPS would give me fast turnaround 48 - 72 hours, free CLA, equipment loans and a direct phone number. All I need do is swap this whole mess of Nikon equipment that I have for Canon;) Tempting I have to say. When I asked Nikon who the local rep was I was told directly that I could not be given that information. </p> <p>I hope you continue to have the experience you had in the past. Clearly the vast majority of us do not fly to LA to have their cameras repaired. It is only my opinion, and others may have completely different experiences, but there seems to have been a significant change in Nikon's treatment of its repair services. I fear the old days of personal, knowledgeable and friendly services are over. </p>

<p>Here is the thing. </p> <p>When I called Nikon to see about sending my lens in the young man (who at best could be described as civil but not polite) told me about the four-year extension. When I mentioned that the website disagreed with him replied tersely, "sorry about that". </p> <p>It has been my experience that this is the attitude from Nikon Service for at least two years now. They don't even pretend to be concerned about customer service issues. Does this hurt their business? I guess not. I have posted comments critical of Nikon Service here several times. and they have not bothered to respond. (Who knows if they are watching anyway.) I have called corporate and was treated in a completely dismissive way. And now this issue which is at best poor attention to detail on their website. <br> Tamron offers a 6 year warranty. Will that affect my buying decisions in the future? It depends on the lens but for a great many people it ought to. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Here is where I found it. Number one on a google search for "Nikon Warranty".</p> <p>https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16192/~/nikon-warranty-and-product-registration</p>

<p>Some time ago I bought a 70-200 AFS VR lens from Adorama. It has been a workhorse. Lately the VR has been a little wonky so I thought I might send it in under warranty. So far so good.</p> <p>When I bought the lens it came with a one year warranty. The Nikon website said that if I would register the lens I would get an additional 5 year warranty. Here is what the Nikon website says today:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Nikkor Lenses<br /></strong>Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension*.<br> * To register for the five year extension, one copy of the included form must be mailed in as indicated. Keep the <strong>Customer</strong> copy of the form as well as the original proof of purchase (sales receipt).</p> </blockquote> <p>Now I know what the answer is and because I posted this you will guess what the answer I got from Nikon was, but based upon the above, what would you conclude the warranty on a new Nikon lens is?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think that Nikon has come to a realization that a lot of us just don't want to admit to at this point. There are just WAY fewer employers buying their employees cameras anymore. There was a time when Nikon could count on a certain number of sales to newspapers and magazines with each new release. This is going fast. Note the Chicago Tribune and others going all freelance. So now those of us who got to-of-the-line cameras from our employers are having to foot the bill for our own equipment. That makes us much more critical about what we actually need and when to upgrade.</p> <p>The D300 gave us 8 FPS and a fairly robust body. The choice for generalist freelancers who occasionally need the fast frame rate is not between our old D300(s) and the D7200. It is between the D300(s) and a D3-3S-4-4S solution. If Nikon powers up the D7200 there is a very good chance that they will just render the D4S a curiosity for the wealthy or for the select few who need the frame rate. Really need it. </p> <p>They gave us 24 MP, 6.5 FPS and full frame with the D750. Bumping that by 1.5 FPS in the DX format is just too small a discriminator. It seems to me that Nikon sees no real market for the D400? that would not be simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. </p> <p>I shot a major rodeo recently. There were about 20 pro's there off and on. In addition to myself there were about 5 with pro bodies (Single digit bodies.) I noticed one other D4 and one 10Dx and the rest older. I fear that the demand is far more an issue of price than it is of relatively small increases in capability. </p>

<p>I still have a D3 in the heard. I use it quite frequently as a backup to my D4. It is quite good in low-light. You will really enjoy it in comparison to the D80. </p> <p>The price you are mentioning is very low. If the camera is in excellent condition it is a great deal. All things being equal, I would always take the D3 over the D700. So if the cameras are in comparable shape that is not a hard decision at all. The D3 is a much better camera than the D700. (I have owned both.)</p> <p>The irony is that the D7100 or the D7200 are right in the sweet spot for what you want to do except that you have the 28-70 F/2.8 which is constraining you quite a bit. </p> <p>Just for fun consider getting a D7100 and selling the 28-70 to buy a good F/2.8 17 to something. </p> <p>If you have never used one of Nikon's pro bodies you are in for a treat. You are going to seriously love the ergonomics, speed and capabilities of the D3. On second thought. Get the D3 if it is in good shape. You owe it to yourself. </p>

<p>This looks like a sensible update to the already pretty darned nice D7100. With the deeper buffer this camera eases into the 'acceptable for sports' category. </p> <p>I have a D7100 so won't be updating as it is not my sports camera anyway but I appreciate a nice, incremental update that makes sense. This will be an easy to recommend camera. </p> <p>The Coolpix is interesting. Might be a bang-up travel camera. </p>

<p>It seems to me that you have nothing useful in the first place. You do not have a model release. I am no expert and there are some here who will set you on the right path. It seems that Ellis has done so. </p> <p>Without a model release, what interest is it that you think you are protecting?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I sort of have to agree with Bob on this one. There is a price to be paid for any business start-up and cameras are the tools we need. I do not think it is necessary for her to go buy two D-810s or two D4s'. She could make due nicely with two D7100's for the price of a refurbished D3. They fit all of the requirements. Good performance across the board. They are fine wedding cameras and there are appropriate lenses available for them for not all that much money. Still it would take a good $4K for two of these cameras and two lenses. 70-200 F/2.8 used and a good Sigma or Tamron 17 - 50ish lenses. You can cover about any wedding with that. Maybe slip a 50 mm F/1.8 in your pocket.</p> <p>I also agree that she needs two very good flashes. Add another $600.00 for that. A dozen cards add another $400.00. Some bags, modifiers, filters, software....maybe $1500.00.</p> <p>So we are talking a minimum kit of well over $6000.00. And that IS the cheap setup. </p> <p>As so many here have said though, the most dearly purchased piece of you kit is your experience. Talk to you local priest. Tell him you would shoot weddings for free for the experience for people who can't afford anything for a photographer. Use the best camera you can afford. But work every shot you give them as if you were shooting George Clooney's wedding. Shoot charity events. Shoot them like they were the Oscars and you are the only person with a camera. If you really do "love" photography every one of these 'assignments' will be pure joy. And while you are learning your craft (don't forget the business and sales skills too) you can save up for the equipment. </p> <p>Just before I wrote this I was laying out my kit for a major sporting event I am shooting tomorrow. I have been doing this for a long time and had a pretty good selection. One of the cameras I left on the shelf was a battered old D2H. I can remember when I was thrilled to get this camera and then the D2xs. Both still in my stable. It occurred to me that I could shoot this event tomorrow with either of those cameras and the editor would never know the difference. And the pictures would be beautiful. So, of course, you want the best equipment you can afford but try not to become a gearhead. If you have a D800 you don't need a D810. If you shoot auto racing and have a D3 you probably don't "need" a D4s. Get the best you can afford and get shooting. That is the most important thing you can do.</p> <p>Good luck!!!</p>

<p>I am going to be excoriated for this but let me offer an odd idea. You said:</p> <blockquote> <p>Im put off by comments about Frame rate of the D800/D810 being slow - burst shooting is something I sometimes used to get one shot of fluid movement from a models movement. Is this going to be really an issue.</p> <p>and</p> <p>I like to shoot fashion, portraits and landscapes - not for money - just to create beautiful images.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why don't you consider a refurbished D3. It is lightning fast. The file sizes are easy to manage and in the hand it is a work of art. No it won't outperform the d800. Yes it is old technology. But you use it for fun and it is a joy to use.</p> <p>Snag the old 28-70 AFS f/2.8, a 70-200 F/2.8 Vr1, and a 50mm F/1.4 and you can have a ton of fun. If you want to have a bazillion pixels get a D7100 as a backup camera and Bob's your Uncle.</p> <p>Just being a contrarian. </p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<p>Here is why I think this is generally just a marketing ploy. Both current Nikon and Canon professional users, who will buy these cameras, are already up to their hips in lenses and flashes to the point that switching brands would be excessively expensive and if not that at least very time consuming. Of course there are talented (and some not so talented) amateurs who want the latest and greatest. They will buy the next-biggest thing no matter what it is. If someone came out with a 1/100,000 shutter speed we would have a five page thread about how this makes Minolta better than Argus. All of us would tell a story about the time we missed the bullet at the wedding reception. </p> <p>Mindful of the issues with high resolution sensors that Shun mentioned (with which I completely agree) what percentage of photographers will create the set of circumstances that would require and then take advantage of this additional capability? Practically none. </p> <p>I watched a well-equipped D800E user shooting a raptor free flight demonstration with the 80-200 mm F/2.8, hand-held describing to someone in the crowd how his high pixel count will allow him to crop so much more deeply and give him shots that "those big lens guys" would not get. (I was shooting a D4 with 300 mm F/2.8 at the time.) I think everyone can see why I simply ignored him and went about my work. But he was a true believer. Wrong in ways he did not even begin to understand but he had the strength of his convictions. It never occurred to him that there was a good reason why we chose the equipment we did. One Canon 1Dx guy stood next to the loudmouth and ripped of a few passes at 11 FPS which got him an admiring glance and a moment of stunned silence. </p> <p>So as someone mentioned earlier, if on this iteration of their sensor Canon fixed their less than stellar dynamic range issues, there may be something to be said for the combination. If they did not fix that they will still be behind the power curve on a very important metric. </p> <p>I am all for purpose-built cameras for those who need them. I am not one of those folks. I guess I don't even know any of those folks. But Canon will sell this like crazy to folks who do not need it but just want it. And I guess that is fine too. </p> <p> </p>

<p>This is a solution in search of a problem. </p> <p>I would not buy a 50 MP camera unless it did my post processing for me and made crisp bacon. This is puzzling because marketing is the only real reason to do this. It is not like the photographic community has been clamoring for it. </p>

<p>Well. If you sold your equipment, and the last camera you had was the D7000, then you are at about a $3000.00 start point just to go with the D610. Lenses and all. If you go with the D750, D800 or D810 you are closer to $5000.00. So before we go trying to justify those numbers we need to know where you are comfortable.</p> <p>I am concerned with your use of the term "first class". As an example. Comparing the D700 to the D7000, unless you push the high ISO to the limit, you will get better pictures from the D7000 than you will from the D700. It has higher dynamic range, higher resolution, etc. </p> <p>It is always fun to get a new camera. Help us with your budget and we can do a better job for you.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I know Nikon is really working hard to improve this type of services, but I am not sure that this i.s really working.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just out of curiosity Federica, how do you know that they are doing this? All of the evidence seems to point to them doing just the opposite. </p>

<p>Nikon's technical support is going from bad to worse. Where once one could speak to a technician, now one must speak to a call center. The several calls I made to the call center put me in contact with people who were not knowledgeable, and who seemed apathetic in general. Even a call to the corporate headquarters to contact "management" left me in contact with an obviously young man who was little short of rude. If this is how they treat people who publish pictures using their cameras, imagine how they treat the average consumer. </p> <p>If I were not a lifelong Nikon user with many thousands of dollars worth of equipment, I would not consider using Nikon products but rather choose Canon. Canon has committed to improving customer service at the same time Nikon has committed to denigrating it. </p>

<p>What is the budget? That is the key.</p> <p>You said backpacking. Weight and bulk are actually your biggest issues. If I were you I would bring what you have. They are good lenses. They are light. And with the high ISO performance of your camera, will do just fine. If you just have to spend money you could bring along a the 50 mm F/1.8. It is the best $100.00 you will ever spend. </p> <p>You could consider the 18-200 vr or the 16-85 but they are expensive and I really doubt you will see much difference. In fact I know you won't. The 18-200 is all about convenience and the 16-85 has nice image quality. Nice but not so nice that it is worth the difference in spending no money and over $500.00. </p> <p>One of the things a long lens like the 70-300 does is allow you to visualize your shots better. You may find the 16-85 a bit lacking in that regard.</p> <p>Just curious. Why do you dislike the 18-55? </p>

<p>What Wouter said. </p> <p>Again we are pole vaulting over mouse droppings. The overwhelming majority of your photos will show no difference. </p> <p>As they say in golf,, "you can't buy a game". As a beginner, pick your camera and spend your time and money on training, education and practice. Any of these will improve your shooting far more than an equipment change. </p> <p>Consider this. Your camera hold technique will affect your low-light shots FAR more than any lens change, no matter which camera you use. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Just what is it that makes people recommend the crappy Vivitar 285 and similar? No swivel on the head, no manual control without an additional module, "iffy" trigger voltage, lengthy recycle time, less powerful than an SB-25 for example. The list of drawbacks is much longer than any advantages. They're not even that cheap these days. Your $20 gets you one that doesn't even fire according to a recent listing on fleabay</p> </blockquote> <p>Can we try, perhaps for a change, to give the OP good advice? So if you don't like the Vivitars then propose something else. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that he does not buy some lousy ebay "Complete Professional Deluxe Advanced Lighting Solution" for $199.95. What matters is that he learns about lighting by doing it before he plunks down a couple of grand on Bee's.<br> I use the Vivitars sometimes. I usually have enough Nikons to do what I want and I have PCB and Bees available. But the OP needs to get started while his new knowledge is fresn in his mind. </p>