Nikon NPS have found my D800 body damaged.

T

tfboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
997
Name
Xavier
Edit My Images
Yes
Hmm.

I'm a bit taken back with my first experience sending my 24-70/2.8 off to Nikon for a clean and specifically a zoom mechanic regrease as the zoom ring sometimes is a little stiff. I read reports of it being a fairly common occurence and even saw youtube videos on how to do it yourself, but thought I might as well send if off to Nikon for an estimate.

I was also having a larger number of missed AF shots with this lens when mounted on my D800 body so decided to send the body off at the same time so they could check.

I'd also just been accepted as an NPS member, so the fast track would be appreciated too :)

A few days later, the estimate comes in, and I'm shocked: total cost is around £570 which seems an awful lot for a strip down and relube of an Non-VR AF-S lens.

But on closer inspection, the more worrying thing is Nikon's comment on the D800: "Equipment shows signs of impact damage" :O
And a chunk of money is for part number 1F999-231 which is the "Front body unit".

My D800 body is mint. OK, maybe a few microscratches on the rubber base, but visibly fine in every other aspect.

I've phoned them up and the lady said she would ask the engineer for a more detailed report, but her initial comment was that maybe the bayonet fitting had become distorted following a knock with a lens. And that seems unlikely to me as I've always been very careful with it. And whenever I had a heavy lens like the 200/2.0, I've aways supported by the lens, so never put any strain on it.

If something is really out of alignment, then based on my usage of the camera, it wouldn't have been down to a knock, but faulty assembly / part. But the body is just around 2 years old so probably out of warranty...

Has anyone else come across a similar comment when sending their body in?
 
Well I don't think you are being ripped off. You don't have to accept the estimate, and you could just take the 24-70 repair and leave the body out of the work.

That said it sounds as if you acknowledge you have an issue with the lens, no argument there - and also that you are missing focus in the combination with the D800 - so it is possible that you have a problem with your body as well.

I'd want to know if you have any AF issues with other lenses on the same body or if it is restricted to the 24-70 in which case just fixing that lens might sort your problem out.

If you are getting poor AF results then I'd be inclined to agree with the NPS assessment about the mount. It is a precision piece of kit and even a small knock might damage the mount of the front frame of the body - a knock you didn't notice. What I do know is that Nikon won't accept your assessment that the body is at Nikons fault after 2 years of use - not if the mount is distorted there is too much opportunity for user damage for them to cop for that. The absence of nicks or dents doesn't mean anything.

Worst case is send it to Fixation and get a second opinion.
 
I've only noticed issues (typically back focussing) with the 24-70. All my other lenses (from 12mm to 300mm) work flawlessly with AF, and when they are OOF shots, it's down to my technique.
I'm stll waiting to hear back from them on what the exact problem is. The 24-70 lens also has the "equipment shows signs of impact damage", yet the only parts mentioned are a ring of some sort which I guess is for the zoom which is why I sent it in the first place.

I'm just surprised that they found an issue on a piece of equipment I didn't ask them to check. And an issue that isn't visible to the naked eye. All my lenses (including the 24-70) mount without any play between the body and lens (on the D3S as well as the D800). I accept they wouldn't accept it to be a warranty job after two years use no matter how careful or little I've used it (incredibly careful and less than 3000 shots!).

I'll wait for them to tell me exactly what it means so I can then decide to have it repaired or not. I'm happy for them to sort the lens out and the price is acceptable to me :)
 
Bayonet ring flexing can cause soft images. It happens a lot with heavy lenses and used to be pretty much a standard repair on Nikon bodies.

However, it used to be pretty cheap. The fact they are saying impact damage and front unit (I don't know what that is - Nikon part names aren't always helpful) makes it sound like it's worse.

Are you sure it's never been knocked? Depending on your excess if you remember an impact then insurance might cover it.

Focus check is standard on any camera estimate. Just be grateful they aren't charging you 30 odd quid for new rubbers.
 
tfboy said:
I'm just surprised that they found an issue on a piece of equipment I didn't ask them to check. And an issue that isn't visible to the naked eye.
Click to expand...

This is NPS. They are a professional unit and will check anything you send into them - after all it might be a lens issue, body issue, or a combination of the both issue....

As for it being visible to the naked eye. Well they have tooling, jigs and software to test to the highest level of accuracy, why would they limit their investigation to the "naked eye"....

Sounds to me like this might be your first experience of a service, or at least a pro-level service - but this is the level of detail, coverage and quality not to mention pedantic-ness that I would expect (and demand) from NPS for my kit.
 
Mike, I'm not complaining.
They are a professional service team and I appreciate their due diligence and meticulous attention to detail. I provide the same level of service myself when designing / explaining / fault-finding. However: my only "complaint" right now is the lack of further clarification. You take your car to a garage for a service, they do a healthcheck and then say "problem found with engine - new top half of engine required; £2000". A bit more detail gives the customer reassurance (and education!). Without it, it *could* sound as if you're "taken for a ride". I know it's not their intention, but it's how it comes across to me as my virgin NPS experience ;) If I were to be the service company, I would provide more information to explain what is wrong and why it needs replacing / adjusting.

It's probable that their quote / form they fill in is pre-prepared and they have to chose from a finite list of problems and don't have the ability to manually add a text comment to provide more information. I hope it's that, and why I'm asking for a bit more detail :)
 
Hi Xavier

I had the lens lock pin break on my D800 leaving a 500mm f4 attached - nearly permanently.
This caused hilarity at my local dealer but that's for another day.
If they think the bayonet ring and fittings need replacing I'd go with it - it could prevent problems in the future.
However I think you are quite right, a detailed description is simply good customer service.
Don't hold your breath though, the first time my D800 went back it was returned with a service note that essentially said that all had been checked and was fine.
What they omitted from the report was any mention of the work that they actually did to make it work properly!

cheers, cw
 
Last edited:
Nikon, it seems, are like that. My 24=70mm f/2.8G AF-S Nikkor zoom ring seized at around the 50mm mark. Having done some research online I find that the zoom ring on early samples had been a problem on this lens, so bearing in mind it was just 10 months old I had no qualms about returning it to where I bought it for a warranty repair. They, in turn, send it to Nikon, who respond by saying the lens had suffered impact damage, and it was going to cost me £267 to rectify the issue.

No such impact had taken place, I assured them, and pointed out that the lens had a history of this problem, yet they wouldn't budge. It was a case of take it or leave it. I opted (begrudgingly) for the former, otherwise the lens was next to useless. The thing is, after a while I did drop the lens, putting a dent into the zoom ring, yet the optic still performs faultlessly in that - and any other - department.

RichBrew
 
FWIW I've often found Nikon repairs to cost less than the original estimates. Estimates are generally a worst case cost.
 
I'd be wary of Nikon after my experience with them. I had to send a body back and I sent it with the battery inserted but stupidly, didn't note that down on their form as I thought it would be classed as one unit. The body came back but no battery. I was made out to be a liar and that I was trying to con a battery out of them. Eventually 'out of goodwill' they sent me a battery, but it wasn't brand new like the one they'd stolen off me.
 
They've phoned me back with a little more information. Apparently, it's not just the bayonet that's slightly out of alignment, but the whole front of the camera that isn't quite true. The fact I'm seeing it mostly with the 24-70 is because the lens is "immensely sharp".

The engineer is sure that this kind of mis-alignment is only possible after a knock or drop or picking up the camera with a heavy lens without supporting it, which is something I've never done. So unless a friend did it, I'm not quite sure how it happened.

But it doesn't change the fact that it's not quite right (apparently).

I think I might get it all repaired. Whilst I've loved the D800, I've never been quite happy with it paired to the 24-70 and whilst they'll fix the zoom ring on the 24-70, it'll still bug me if I keep the old AF issues. If I get it fixed, I'll have a guarantee that it should be fine. I'll do some tests to really get the confidence back and really moan if it's still not right.

I appreciate people say it's such a sharp and high density pixel count that bad technique becomes quickly apparent, but I've never had any real issues with my 200/2.0 which, at the longer focal length, would reveal even more any bad technique (with VR off).
 
Last edited:
Hi Xavier

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the D800 is a strange and mysterious beast, but it is only a camera and works much the same as any other.
T'internet is full of tosh spouted about how difficult it is to use, how the shutter speed needs to be higher, how you need high ISO, etc
My personal experience was that it would produce random soft images which left me questioning my own ability.
This manifested itself on long primes but not on short.
By which I mean a static subject would be soft fifteen out of twenty shots, despite the camera being supported etc
It also failed to focus on a Vulcan bomber, and they are large and fairly slow moving.
On it's return from Nikon there was no mention of any work done but it mysteriously became reliable, and I mean completely reliable.
I miss shots occasionally but we all do and you usually know which ones just haven't gone right!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that IMHO your camera and lens will come back from Nikon both working as you would expect, but you'll never know why and it'll take time for you to trust it.

Good luck

cheers, cw
 
I've had bayonets replaced a couple of times. Both times I hadn't particularly noticed anything wrong with the focussing. Just a general feeling that something wasn't right. When I got the cameras back it was like wow - so that's what a sharp shot looks like.

D800s look plenty sharp with cheapo lenses, a bit of bayonet abuse and poor technique. But when you get a shot that is actually as sharp as the camera can deliver it's almost painful. I have a regular job where I shoot at f4 with speedlights. I always shoot it locked on a tripod and the results are mind blowing.

Your camera could easily be broken without your realising it ;) Nikon techs often deal with people who don't really care what the fault is or what it costs - they just want it fixed. Usually you can talk to them to get a bit more confidence. But if it doesn't come back spot on then I'd moan.
 
Hmm, that's reassuring, Chris. Thanks for commenting.
Much like you, I have the odd shot I know I got wrong, but sometimes, or rather more often than not, especially with the 24-70, I was *sure* I did everything right and the AF wasn't quite right (mainly back focussing). The apparent randomness of it made it even more frustrating as I couldn't analyse my actions and pinpoint what I was doing wrong to then learn and correct.
I can't even remember if mine suffers (suffered maybe post check :)) of the left focus issue as I never really use it.

The bottom line is that with Nikon doing a full healthcheck, adjustment and charging (which is perfectly normal) for the replacement bits which don't meet their QA, there will no longer be any excuse for the camera to show those erratic focus issues. So it should give me confidence and if ever it's not quite right, I'll certainly get back to them insist.
 
Well, I've gone ahead and accepted it. I'm going to Vegas in a couple of weeks so I'm hoping that the awesome photos and memories I'll come back with will far outweigh the cost :D
 
If you google 'Nikon 24-70 impact damage' you will find quite a lot of people with a similar diagnosis despite no impact ever having taken place.
 
I was out last night with a lens hire company owner, he was telling me that the 24-70 f2.8 needs regreasing after about every 10 hires! I was astounded!
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
I was out last night with a lens hire company owner, he was telling me that the 24-70 f2.8 needs regreasing after about every 10 hires! I was astounded!
Click to expand...

I think you'll find plenty of 24-70 owners who could give you a different experience. Mine is 5.5 years old, gets a lot of use and is fine, and has only been serviced once after a drop 3 years ago.

I'm not saying that the particular lens owned by this lens hire company (although I assume that they have more than one and are referring to all of them) might not need it, but it certainly isn't the norm. Lenses "hired" are also completely different to lenses "owned" I'd suggest also.
 
Last edited:
My 24-70 lives on my D610 instead of the D800. I found I got soft pictures now and agasin using it on the D800, so now I use the 14-24,105 and 70-200 on it with very few problems. Calibration / fine tuning didn't help either. Meh.
 
Sure, hire kit does not get as much love as home kit, but it was the lens he most often has to serviced.
 
Wow having read some of these replies I am so glad I use Canon! ;)

FIGHT!!! :D
 
Not heard much of this on this side of the pond, but look on FM forums or similar for all the bad reports of nikon repairs and claims on impact damage/bent mount, it seems to be the story for everything sent in. Theres even been month old cameras and lenses sent and impact damage claimed. The last one i saw being a 3month old 600mm and them wanting about half the cost to repair it.
Don't pay and they send it back with the warranty canceled.

Nikon customer services is severely lacking and casting a bad light on them. I sent my d800 in last year due to it having the left AF issue, all my lenses needed AFMA before and the left was well out it was returned 10X worse. Half my lenses couldn't be sorted with AFMA and the left side was still out. They wanted it back again, at the time i was talking to someone that had returned his 3 times before it came back working fine.


seems its one thing they could learn from canon.
 
Gazamonk said:
Wow having read some of these replies I am so glad I use Canon! ;)

FIGHT!!! :D
Click to expand...

I'd be very happy to reel out a couple of screens worth of stories about Canon, CPS and Borehamwood if you'd like to even it up ! ;)
 
meonshore said:
I'd be very happy to reel out a couple of screens worth of stories about Canon, CPS and Borehamwood if you'd like to even it up ! ;)
Click to expand...

Nah! Just like starting fights not participating. ;-)

Im well aware that other manufacturers will have similar tales of woe. Lol
 
tfboy said:
...... or picking up the camera with a heavy lens without supporting it .......
Click to expand...

I wonder if the engineer is implying that an unsupported 24-70 can bend the mount, or is he talking about much heavier lenses.

If he means the 24-70, then it doesn't say much for the strength of the body.
 
Ozei said:
I wonder if the engineer is implying that an unsupported 24-70 can bend the mount, or is he talking about much heavier lenses.

If he means the 24-70, then it doesn't say much for the strength of the body.
Click to expand...

Oh good god....

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 
Ozei said:
I wonder if the engineer is implying that an unsupported 24-70 can bend the mount, or is he talking about much heavier lenses.

If he means the 24-70, then it doesn't say much for the strength of the body.
Click to expand...
Better stop using my 500,300 and 70-200 then,
 
He must have been referring to much heavier lenses (e.g. the 3.88kg 500mm f/4) - otherwise it would be unsafe to use the 24-70 on a tripod because it doesn't have a collar!
 
What is so frustrating is that there are obviously quality issues with the lens mounts which are being blamed on owners' mis-use.
Something is going wrong and a pro body should obviously be able to hold a 24-70 without bending.
There are also issues with focus reliability which are being fixed "on the quiet".
None of this does a lot to convince folk that Nikon are looking after them.
 
meonshore said:
I'd be very happy to reel out a couple of screens worth of stories about Canon, CPS and Borehamwood if you'd like to even it up ! ;)
Click to expand...
I've used them several times. When my 24-105 couldn't be fixed in a few days, they lent me a replacement for free. (cpn member). Send it in with the con membership and it's always turned around in two to three days. Can't fault them.

Someone once did tell me that the camera bayonet is designed to be weaker than the lens so it breaks first
 
Last edited:
Right I'm out of this thread. Clear the tin-foil hat brigade have found it, and they'll be no more sense talked....

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Quite rude. You're not the only one entitled to an opinion or view. No need for that at all.
 
Byker28i said:
Quite rude. You're not the only one entitled to an opinion or view. No need for that at all.
Click to expand...

Educated or personal opinions I respect. Wild conspiracy theories, based on a lack of attention to the OP's first post, a complete lack of basic understanding, or 3rd party hearsay, I'll happily walk away from.
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
I was out last night with a lens hire company owner, he was telling me that the 24-70 f2.8 needs regreasing after about every 10 hires! I was astounded!
Click to expand...
I'm astounded too. I think I have probably owned enough Nikon 24-70s to constitute a reasonable sample and I certainly wouldn't characterise this as a systematic issue with them.
 
BBR said:
Didn't want to hijack this thread so posted here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/bracket-for-camera-and-heavy-lens.534848/

It wont help with the 24/70 but if that can pull a mount out of alignment what would a 70/200 or 200/400 do?
Click to expand...
I don't think there has been any suggestion that the weight of a 24-70 can damage the mount. The OP has a 24-70 which needed a service. He also has a camera with (allegedly) a damaged mount. These two facts are not connected.
 
jpw said:
If you google 'Nikon 24-70 impact damage' you will find quite a lot of people with a similar diagnosis despite no impact ever having taken place.
Click to expand...
I tried it and I found some people who sent their 24-70s off to Nikon for a service and were told it had suffered impact damage. I've experienced that myself several times (though not necessarily with a 24-70) and I think it's just a straightforward reflection of the fact that the internals of lenses are delicate and can be damaged in a knock even if there is no apparent external damage.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Something is going wrong and a pro body should obviously be able to hold a 24-70 without bending.
Click to expand...
The thing that's going wrong is your reading of the thread. Neither the OP nor NPS made this suggestion. The OP has a 24-70 and he has a camera with (allegedly) a damaged mount, but these facts are not related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top