 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2008Nikon Camera Recall
For those of you who use Nikon cameras : My relatively new Nikon digital quit on me. I have the type that you can use onland or place into a housing for underwater shots. Mine is a Coolpix. One day, I took two land shots and all was fine. When I attempted to take the third shot, I couldn't focus and all I saw were lines in the viewfinder. I attempted to trouble-shoot to no avail. I contacted a camera shop in hopes that they could fix it and I dreaded the service charge. I was surprised to be told that Nikon has experienced so many complaints about this, that Nikon is fixing the problem free of charge. However, Nikon will NOT say it's a recall. Go figure. They are calling it a "customer courtesy". HA. >For those of you who use Nikon cameras : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >problem free of charge. However, Nikon will NOT say it's a recall. >Go figure. They are calling it a "customer courtesy". HA. What model Coolpix? When did you buy it? I have an ancient Coolpix 990 and a 4 year old Coolpix 3100 and they both work fine. Sounds like yours might be recent production and they got cheap somewhere along the line. A CCD chip defect could produce those lines and it would show in the LCD view. > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:38:07 -0800 (PST), hierophantf...@hotmail.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > somewhere along the line. A CCD chip defect could produce those lines > and it would show in the LCD view. Coolpix 5700. Purchased a few years ago, maybe 4 or 5. The problem is with the camera itself. Nikon has acknowledged that to me in a formal letter stating they will fix it free of charge and they will pay for the return postage to send back to me. >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:38:07 -0800 (PST), hierophantf...@hotmail.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >formal letter stating they will fix it free of charge and they will >pay for the return postage to send back to me. Good to know. Thanks. > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:38 -0800 (PST), hierophantf...@hotmail.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If it can help you, then it makes me happy. :-) > For those of you who use Nikon cameras : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > problem free of charge. However, Nikon will NOT say it's a recall. > Go figure. They are calling it a "customer courtesy". HA. Things like this are pretty common. Since no harm or lawsuits would be involved in the defect they just fix it to keep everyone happy. When Nikon had a battery defect they did a recall since a failure could cause bodily harm. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > had a battery defect they did a recall since a failure could cause bodily > harm. I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved in the defect in this particular instance. You could have a paid photographer using a Coolpix 5700 (an expensive camera) hired to do a wedding and then bammo wammo - no camera workin today. That's a lawsuit. You can't recapture a wedding day unless you ask all the actors to re-do the play. That won't happen. On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved > in the defect in this particular instance. You could have a paid > photographer using a Coolpix 5700 (an expensive camera) hired to do > a wedding and then bammo wammo - no camera workin today. That's a > lawsuit. You can't recapture a wedding day unless you ask all the > actors to re-do the play. That won't happen. What professional wedding photographer wouldn't have a backup camera? In your scenario, it would be the professional who was negligent. On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved > in the defect in this particular instance. You could have a paid > photographer using a Coolpix 5700 (an expensive camera) hired to do > a wedding and then bammo wammo - no camera workin today. That's a > lawsuit. You can't recapture a wedding day unless you ask all the > actors to re-do the play. That won't happen. ?What professional wedding photographer wouldn't have a backup camera? ?In your scenario, it would be the professional who was negligent. Oops, I should have read ahead. > On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What professional wedding photographer wouldn't have a backup camera? > In your scenario, it would be the professional who was negligent. Of course he sure should have a backup. And suppose his backup was just another Nikon or two that went on the fritz. When the camera manufacturer does not state there is a problem, but rather waits until the user has a problem and then claims "we'll fix it for customer courtesy" and the photographer has just FUBAR'd the wedding because of the camera, then I think the manufacturer is gonna get sued. >> On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >courtesy" and the photographer has just FUBAR'd the wedding because >of the camera, then I think the manufacturer is gonna get sued. Actual damages? Whatever the photographer had to refund to the client. Punative damages? Not very likely. Pain and suffering? Ha! This might be a case for small claims court, since the photog using the Coolpix probably wasn't charging much money.  Signaturedillon I used to think the horse's name was Bob. And the angel's name was Hark. In article <64ab16ba-31ac-4cdd-9ab6-4463b4d379b1 @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Dec 28, 8:12 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: - -> I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved -> in the defect in this particular instance. ->You could have a paid photographer using a Coolpix surely you jest. anyone who hires a coolpix gets no less than he deserves. SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <64ab16ba-31ac-4cdd-9ab6-4463b4d379b1 > @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > surely you jest. > anyone who hires a coolpix gets no less than he deserves. You are truly an idiot. Do you hire a particular tool type when you ask someone to fix your car, or your house or your boat or to implant a pacemaker in your chest ? I doubt it. People don't hire a camera for their wedding or whatever. They hire a photogragher and they trust that person to use the proper tool. Just like they hire an auto mechanic and trust him to do the job but I doubt if they ask what tools he uses. They hire a builder/whatever and trust him to do the job on their home. They hire a boat mechanic and trust that he will make it right. They hire or are stuck with a doctor and I have a feeling that not many people ask their surgeon what type of drill or seperator or coagulator the doctor would use before that person agrees to surgery. ANd thus... you get the BOOB of THE DAY AWARD !!!!!!!!! A CoolPix is an amateur's camera. A pro shooting Nikon would be using a couple of D2x, D2s, D100, D200, D3 or D300. Look at the Nikon CoolPix web site at http://www.nikon-coolpix.com/e/index.html do you want any of these bozos shooting a wedding? >> In article <64ab16ba-31ac-4cdd-9ab6-4463b4d379b1 >> @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > ANd thus... you get the BOOB of THE DAY AWARD !!!!!!!!! > A CoolPix is an amateur's camera. A pro shooting Nikon would be using a > couple of D2x, D2s, D100, D200, D3 or D300. Look at the Nikon CoolPix > web site athttp://www.nikon-coolpix.com/e/index.htmldo you want any of > these bozos shooting a wedding? I looked at the website you provided. They don't show the Coolpix camera that I have and mine doesn't look like any of those featured. Mine is not compact by any means. It would appear that Nikon has changed the line since I purchased mine. None the less, thank you for the site. On Jan 1, 6:00 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > > A CoolPix is an amateur's camera. A pro shooting Nikon would be using a > > couple of D2x, D2s, D100, D200, D3 or D300. Look at the Nikon CoolPix [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > changed the line since I purchased mine. None the less, thank you for > the site. It's not whether it's compact or not. There's such a wide range of digital SLRs available, with an infinite variety of lenses, that no professional would be using a camera with a single built-in lens. > It's not whether it's compact or not. There's such a wide range of > digital SLRs available, with an infinite variety of lenses, that no > professional would be using a camera with a single built-in lens. For a lot of people (i.e. the 'masses'), having a single lens that pretty much covers the range of photos that they are likely to take is enough... This is probably a step of from the point-and-shoot 35mm cameras that they had back in the film days... Most people are not willing to spend the money on additional lenses for an SLR or DSLR body... I ended up buying a new 10-17mm fisheye lens up here in NYC, just because I couldn't get all of the subject matter in frame with the 18-55mm lens that I bought initially with the camera body... Sometimes you just don't have enough room to be able to back off far enough to get everything in frame with the normal lens... There's no way that I could have fit all of this shot into the frame without knocking down a couple of buildings on Wall Street in order to back up a bit more... <grin> http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5150347509005162402 Of course my 70-300 lens definitely has limited use up here -- basically taking a photo of the Statue of Liberty from across the river... http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5149923840546182338 The people who buy the Coolpix type of cameras don't want to be carrying around a collection of lenses, much less having to buy different lenses... It doesn't take all that long for a person to end up with more invested in their lenses than in the initial camera body... In some ways, that it what is nice about SLR / DSLR photography -- you keep your lenses and just upgrade the body the next time something comes out that you believe that you just *have* to *have*... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> It's not whether it's compact or not. There's such a wide range of >> digital SLRs available, with an infinite variety of lenses, that no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5150347509005162402 Yeah, my 50mm is no longer my "standard" and my usual lens, a 35-175 is barely adequate for "tight" shots now that I've gone digital. >Of course my 70-300 lens definitely has limited use up here -- basically >taking a photo of the Statue of Liberty from across the river... > >http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5149923840546182338 I've got a 500 that's now a 750 equivalent. >The people who buy the Coolpix type of cameras don't want to be carrying >around a collection of lenses, much less having to buy different lenses... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >upgrade the body the next time something comes out that you believe that >you just *have* to *have*... Yeah, $10K in lenses kept me in film until this summer. Then I bought the Sony A100. And then the f.ckers come out with the A700! But, as my sister pointed out, I now have two cameras to take to the races. And 5 lenses, a monopod and probably 10 rolls of film along with the two bodies. Signaturedillon I used to think the horse's name was Bob. And the angel's name was Hark. > Yeah, my 50mm is no longer my "standard" and my usual lens, a 35-175 is > barely adequate for "tight" shots now that I've gone digital. Yeah, that 1.5 multiplication factor really screws things up on the wide angle side... It used to be that an 18-55mm lens would cover you all the way down to most any wide angle shot you needed to take... Hell, I can remember back in the days of just fixed lenses doing most of my shots with a 50mm f1.4 lens... > I've got a 500 that's now a 750 equivalent. Don't get much use out of that, do you? > Yeah, $10K in lenses kept me in film until this summer. Then I bought > the Sony A100. And then the f.ckers come out with the A700! > > But, as my sister pointed out, I now have two cameras to take to the > races. And 5 lenses, a monopod and probably 10 rolls of film along with > the two bodies. I took a few dusk photos from on top of the condo last night... They turned out pretty good... They start here: http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5150651081588611890 Many of the photos ended up with a couple of seconds of exposure and the lights from the cars were just streaks... http://picasaweb.google.com/grumman581/2007NewYorkTrip/photo#5150661286430907474 Not too back considering the fact that I didn't have a tripod... I haven't figured out all the settings on my camera yet... Ideally, I would want to use a high f-stop, low ASA, and long shutter speed to get the most streaking effect from the lights... Unfortunately, it gets fuckin' cold up there on top of the building... SignatureAbove email address not valid. Look in NNTP headers for real contact info. >> Yeah, my 50mm is no longer my "standard" and my usual lens, a 35-175 is >> barely adequate for "tight" shots now that I've gone digital. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Don't get much use out of that, do you? Actually, I have a great picture of Montoya giving Michael Schumacher the finger at the 2002 USGP. I also have a spectacular picture of a hawk taking a pigeon. I haven't tried it on the A100. >> Yeah, $10K in lenses kept me in film until this summer. Then I bought >> the Sony A100. And then the f.ckers come out with the A700! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the most streaking effect from the lights... Unfortunately, it gets >fuckin' cold up there on top of the building... I'm still learning mine. I bought an e-book that "everybody" says is the bible for the A100. It's over 400 pages. The color hard copy is over $80. But the PDF was $20. Signaturedillon Always get off the first shot. You may hit him and you're sure to throw off his aim. -- Lazarus Long > On Jan 1, 6:00 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > digital SLRs available, with an infinite variety of lenses, that no > professional would be using a camera with a single built-in lens. Yea. I was an idiot to pay $600 + many years ago for that camera. I thought it'd be cool in a housing for underwater. My bad. On Jan 3, 3:28 pm, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Jan 1, 6:00 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yea. I was an idiot to pay $600 + many years ago for that camera. I > thought it'd be cool in a housing for underwater. My bad. It's OK. I have a useless Sony F717 for the same reason. Wanna trade? ??I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved in the defect in this particular instance. You could have a paid photographer using a Coolpix 5700 (an expensive camera) hired to do a wedding and then bammo wammo - no camera workin today. That's a lawsuit. You can't recapture a wedding day unless you ask all the ??actors to re-do the play. That won't happen. Is this wedding taking place at some completely remote location and the photographer doesn't have access to any other camera? > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is this wedding taking place at some completely remote location and the > photographer doesn't have access to any other camera? Suppose his other camera was another Nikon and it failed. See my reply to Counselor Mossman. What you need to understand is something I said in the first post and that is that Nikon never issued a recall. I have a major problem with that and I'm sure a wedding photographer would too. Regardless, I can have a caret. ;^) On Dec 28, 11:23 pm, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote: > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is this wedding taking place at some completely remote location and the > photographer doesn't have access to any other camera? Suppose his other camera was another Nikon and it failed. See my reply to Counselor Mossman. What you need to understand is something I said in the first post and that is that Nikon never issued a recall. I have a major problem with that and I'm sure a wedding photographer would too. Regardless, I can have a caret. ;^) Go back and look at the fine print you agreed to when you bought the camera. I'll bet that if you came across Elvis and Bigfoot at a picnic and your camera didn't work you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would also bet you would not be able to find a lawyer who would take the case. It comes under the heading "s**t happens." I can understand why you are upset, but you don't have much of a legal case against anybody. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you would not be able to find a lawyer who would take the case. It comes > under the heading "s**t happens." Heh. I'm waiting on BIgfoot. I don't care about Elvis. > I can understand why you are upset, but you don't have much of a legal case > against anybody. You can't understand why I'm upset and I'm not a photographer so I wouldn't be suing. The legal part doesn't matter to me. I'm just saying that I think the legal part could matter to someone else. The reason I'm upset is that ever since my camera went on the fritz, I've seen like a billion things that I just stopped and said "I wish I had a camera right now !" Oh well. Hey, Happy New Year to you and yours. :^) hierophantfish@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : The :reason I'm upset is that ever since my camera went on the fritz, I've :seen like a billion things that I just stopped and said "I wish I had :a camera right now !" Oh well. Hey, Happy New Year to you and :yours. :^) If your camera was working properly, what percentage of those times would you have had it with you? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. > hierophantf...@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Dan Bracuk > Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. I would have had my camera with me 100% of the time. I'm talking about things that happened here at home and so I'd just have to go to the closet and grab it or pick it up off the table. It seems that since my camera went belly up, there have been many images at home here that I would have liked to capture on film/digital. A Murphy's Law thing I guess. Regardless, Happy New Year to you and yours. hierophantfish@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I would have had my camera with me 100% of the time. I'm talking :about things that happened here at home and so I'd just have to go to :the closet and grab it or pick it up off the table. It seems that :since my camera went belly up, there have been many images at home :here that I would have liked to capture on film/digital. A Murphy's :Law thing I guess. Regardless, Happy New Year to you and yours. And to you and yours. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. On Dec 31, 4:52 pm, Dan Bracuk <NOTbra...@pathcom.com> wrote: > hierophantf...@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Dan Bracuk > Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ?I would have had my camera with me 100% of the time. I'm talking ?about things that happened here at home and so I'd just have to go to ?the closet and grab it or pick it up off the table. It seems that ?since my camera went belly up, there have been many images at home ?here that I would have liked to capture on film/digital. A Murphy's ?Law thing I guess. Regardless, Happy New Year to you and yours. You mean pictures of your dogs and such? > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You mean pictures of your dogs and such? You mean my cats and such. No, I have a picture or two of them. The "and such" was an 8 point buck walking around here with a his buddy, a 3 pointer. I'll never see that again in a billion years. The other "and such" had to do with the kids and a nice snow fall and a beautiful sunset, etc. You get the idea. On Jan 1, 6:27 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote: >> You mean pictures of your dogs and such? >You mean my cats and such. No, I have a picture or two of them. The >"and such" was an 8 point buck walking around here with a his buddy, a >3 pointer. I'll never see that again in a billion years. The >other "and such" had to do with the kids Who's kids? >and a nice snow fall and a >beautiful sunset, etc. You get the idea. Pretty much. > On Jan 1, 6:27 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who's kids? Oops, I meant "Whose kids?" > >and a nice snow fall and a > >beautiful sunset, etc. You get the idea. > > Pretty much. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who's kids? Mine and the neighbors. > >and a nice snow fall and a > >beautiful sunset, etc. You get the idea. > > Pretty much. Thank god. :^) > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message I meant to wish you and yours a Happy New Year in with the last post but forgot. ;^) On Jan 1, 6:27 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote: > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message I meant to wish you and yours a Happy New Year in with the last post but forgot. ;^) Thank you and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year for you too. On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "Sheldon" <shel...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote: > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > had a battery defect they did a recall since a failure could cause bodily > harm. I don't think that anyone can assume "no harm or lawsuits" involved in the defect in this particular instance. You could have a paid photographer using a Coolpix 5700 (an expensive camera) hired to do a wedding and then bammo wammo - no camera workin today. That's a lawsuit. You can't recapture a wedding day unless you ask all the actors to re-do the play. That won't happen. Most wedding photographers would not be shooting with a Coolpix, and most wedding photographers have insurance which does indeed bring back all the principles in the wedding to be reshot. If your car won't start you don't have a lawsuit. If it explodes you do. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > principles in the wedding to be reshot. If your car won't start you don't > have a lawsuit. If it explodes you do.- Hide quoted text - Are you a wedding photographer ? How is it that you know so much about different Coopix, especially the model I named which is the 5700 ? In your opinion, what digital camera would a wedding photog use ? And if you aren't a profession photog, then on what do you base your comments ? As far as your comment re "your car won't start", there have been tons of car item recalls and they continue to this day and will forever. It's not a matter of your car not starting. It's a matter of the nature of the defect, and if your car manufacturer was honest about it when they first knew of it. Considering that, something called "The Lemon Law" will kick in at times. I fail to understand your comment about " If your car won't start you don't have a lawsuit. If it explodes you do." If your car won't start and the warranty or Lemon Law apply, then yes, you do have a lawsuit. You also have a lawsuit if it misbehaves somewhat less than exploding. > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You state, "and most wedding photographers have insurance which does indeed bring back all the principles in the wedding to be reshot. " WHAT ?? What exactly do you mean ? Brings back all the principles. How does that work ? And how do you know of this ?? Does the photgrapher's insurance pay for the bridesmaides and grooms who live in another state (or country) to show up again and play out the wedding again ? I don't think so. And then what do they do for the elderly relative who passed away just after the wedding -- get a computer image of her or dig her up from her grave and have her corspe ? And, don't you think that the photograghers' insurance company is gonna sue the camera manufacturer ? If the camera manufacturer was at fault, then of course the photographer's insurance company is going after them. >For those of you who use Nikon cameras : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >problem free of charge. However, Nikon will NOT say it's a recall. >Go figure. They are calling it a "customer courtesy". HA. In the automotive industry, they're called TSBs, technical service bulletins. If you run into the problem and bring it in, they'll say "oh yeah". But they won't tell you about it. Signaturedillon I used to think the horse's name was Bob. And the angel's name was Hark. > Thus spake hierophantf...@hotmail.com : > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I used to think the horse's name was Bob. > And the angel's name was Hark. The auto industry has me ticked off too. I've had to have my GMC pickup in to the dealer three separate times since I bought it in 2003 to have parts in the steering mechanism replaced. I contacted a lawyer who specializes in the Lemon Law issue but he said he couldn't be of service in my case. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.