Another moan about Nikon service

[StewartR]

Sorry if you're all getting a bit fed up with me moaning about Nikon service. But I've just reviewed some more numbers and I'm quite appalled.

This time I'm not talking about turnaround times - that continues to be poor, though there are perhaps some signs of improvement recently. And I'm not talking about the incredibly high failure rate of Nikon 'professional' zooms - that continues to be horrendous. But I've just had to send a lens back to Nikon for re-repair, because when we received it from Kingston it had an obvious and glaring fault, and it occurred to me that that wasn't the first time we've had to do that. So I've been looking at the frequency of re-repairs, and this is what I found.

Nikon - 64 repairs - 8 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 5 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 13 out of 64 = 20%.
Canon - 77 repairs - 2 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 1 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 3 out of 77 = 4%.

 

[PaulButler]

Sorry if you're all getting a bit fed up with me moaning about Nikon service

no, not at all ...

On a more serious note have you written to Nikon about this? If so any response?

Which pro zooms btw?

 

[snerkler]

Sorry if you're all getting a bit fed up with me moaning about Nikon service. But I've just reviewed some more numbers and I'm quite appalled.

This time I'm not talking about turnaround times - that continues to be poor, though there are perhaps some signs of improvement recently. And I'm not talking about the incredibly high failure rate of Nikon 'professional' zooms - that continues to be horrendous. But I've just had to send a lens back to Nikon for re-repair, because when we received it from Kingston it had an obvious and glaring fault, and it occurred to me that that wasn't the first time we've had to do that. So I've been looking at the frequency of re-repairs, and this is what I found.

Nikon - 64 repairs - 8 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 5 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 13 out of 64 = 20%.
Canon - 77 repairs - 2 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 1 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 3 out of 77 = 4%.

When you say total failure rate do you mean failure rate after repair? How I'm reading this is that you've had to repair less Nikon lenses (64 vs 77) but of those 64 thirteen of this have had to go back for further repair/weren't repaired properly?

 

[StewartR]

When you say total failure rate do you mean failure rate after repair?

Nikon - 64 repairs - 8 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 5 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 13 out of 64 = 20%.

8 + 5 = 13.

How I'm reading this is that you've had to repair less Nikon lenses (64 vs 77) ...

Yes, but I have roughly twice as much Canon equipment as Nikon, and the utilisation rate is higher too. The gross numbers of repairs are not indicative of the failure rates.

 

[Birdy06]

How does that compare to third party lenses, Tamron, Sigma et al? I remember someone on here recently claiming third party lenses to be utter rubbish.

 

[StewartR]

On a more serious note have you written to Nikon about this? If so any response?

Yes, of course I have.

Your comments have been forwarded on for an internal review, as we are always analysing the number of repairs returned within the service warranty period.

 

[StewartR]

Which pro zooms btw?

There are only 4 or 5 models of Nikon zoom for which we have enough lenses and enough history to be able to make statistically meaningful statements regarding their reliability.

* 14-24mm f/2.8 - zoom mechanism prone to failure
* 24-70mm f/2.8 (non-VR) - zoom mechanism prone to failure
* 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (1st gen) - no concerns
* 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II - no concerns
* 80-400mm G VR - zoom mechanism highly prone to failure

HTH.

 

[snerkler]

8 + 5 = 13.

Yes, but I have roughly twice as much Canon equipment as Nikon, and the utilisation rate is higher too. The gross numbers of repairs are not indicative of the failure rates.

Yeah, I thought that would be the case, I wasn’t suggesting that Nikon were more reliable.

 

[hashcake]

Sorry if you're all getting a bit fed up with me moaning about Nikon service. But I've just reviewed some more numbers and I'm quite appalled.

Not me, I've not spent much time back on here until recently and I've missed your previous posts on the matter.
The need to send so many back for re-repair is what would concern me.
We can all have a bad day at work and mistakes can happen but 8 needing re-repair is a bit high imho.
These 8 lenses, did they come back still faulty or did they develop another / same fault and were these faults discovered by customers or you?

 

[PaulButler]

Yes, of course I have.

Thought you would have, and that was a typical corporate response from them too ... mind you I'm not sure what I would have expected from them.

There are only 4 or 5 models of Nikon zoom for which we have enough lenses and enough history to be able to make statistically meaningful statements regarding their reliability.

* 14-24mm f/2.8 - zoom mechanism prone to failure
* 24-70mm f/2.8 (non-VR) - zoom mechanism prone to failure
* 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (1st gen) - no concerns
* 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II - no concerns
* 80-400mm G VR - zoom mechanism highly prone to failure

HTH.

Yep it does, thanks

 

[StewartR]

These 8 lenses, did they come back still faulty or did they develop another / same fault and were these faults discovered by customers or you?

In nearly all cases, the issue which necessitated the original repair had been fixed, but something else failed in the process. For example, this recent one was originally set in because the zoom had seized, and when it came back the zoom was fine but the aperture stop-down didn't work. We had another which we sent in because the zoom had seized, and when it came back the AF juddered. We had another which we sent in because the AF had failed, and when it came back the VR didn't work and the aperture stop-down didn't work. The general impression I get is that the lenses aren't being put back together properly.

None of these faults were discovered by customers. We test everything thoroughly every time it comes back to us, including when it comes back from repair.

Generally speaking, it's very rare for a customer to discover a fault. We're quite good at spotting some signs of incipient failures, and we send stuff off for repair in situations where many customers probably wouldn't notice anything wrong. Of course it's always possible for a lens to fail when a customer is using it - things do fail - but it's quite rare.

 

[hashcake]

The general impression I get is that the lenses aren't being put back together properly..

That really is terrible, they should be fully tested before being sent back to you.
Sounds like an unsupervised trainee has been repairing them, a seasoned technician shouldn't make so many mistakes.
Hopefully your email to Nikon will get them to look into it.

 

[simonbarker]

Sounds like they're just doing the minimum amount of work required to mark the job as completed and not properly testing.

It's really rather poor.

 

[dom71]

Nikon - 64 repairs - 8 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 5 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 13 out of 64 = 20%.
Canon - 77 repairs - 2 needed to be sent back for re-repair, plus a further 1 failed during the warranty period. Total failure rate 3 out of 77 = 4%.

Can't help but wonder what the ratio of days hired to repairs is though. The above looks bad on first appearance, but without taking use into account, it's probably meaningless?

 

[StewartR]

The above looks bad on first appearance, but without taking use into account, it's probably meaningless?

I disagree. When you have 8 repairs out of 64 that need to be re-done immediately, the usage is irrelevant. These things haven't failed in use. They have simply not been repaired properly.

I think you may have a point when it comes to failures within the warranty period, but only a partial one. Funnily enough I try to manage my business so that usage rates are broadly consistent across different types of equipment. If usage is high, I buy more. If usage is low, I sell. So its not a big factor in failure rates.

 

[StewartR]

Sounds like they're just doing the minimum amount of work required to mark the job as completed and not properly testing.

I agree, that's what it sounds like. But to be fair, I don't think it's as simple as that. I don't like to think that they just employ a bunch of box-tickers.

 

[User.82148]

I would have hoped that they tested the lenses before they were returned. This should have picked up faults like VR failure and aperture stop down faults. You must be an important customer so am surprised they provide you with a poor service. Also surprised that most of your customers do not pick up the faults as some must be pros. Are the cameras more reliable than the lenses?