Nikon vs Adobe?

[Mike Farley]

There has been a lot of comment both on this forum and elsewhere about Adobe's move to a subscription model for its premium products, as well as exposing millions of its customers to potential fraud through a well publicised hack. Yet there is another company in the photography business which is worthy of some criticism in the way it handles it affairs - Nikon. The recent announcement of its D610 model must serve as an example of now NOT to boost consumer confidence.

For some time, the Internet has been awash with stories about oil collecting on the sensors of Nikon's D600 camera, about which Nikon has never made any public announcement. The suspicions are that Nikon has replaced the D600 with the broadly similar D610 solely to address this issue. Once again, this is something which Nikon will neither confirm nor deny, but it is hardly likely to boost the confidence of potential savvy purchasers. Nor does it fit well with the company's ambition to become the world's leading camera manufacturer.

There is a good article here which summarises the various responses to the D610.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the ... eadli.html

Mike Johnston's comment at The Online Photographer about Nikon having longstanding form in not commenting on manufacturing defects is also interesting. By coincidence, that also involves oil collecting where it shouldn't, on lens aperture blades that time.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... there.html

And lest anyone forget, there have been persistent mutterings about D800 focussing problems about which Nikon has been totally silent.

http://www.bythom.com/D800autofocus.htm

For those who are interested in how the retail channels work, there is another article by Thom Hogan in relation to the D600/610. Granted it relates to what happens in the States, but I suspect that there are many similarities with the UK and elsewhere.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/i-d ... olved.html

I have no doubt that Nikon makes good cameras, unaffected D600s included, and has many satisfied customers. Behind the scenes it has been working quietly to address the problems customers have reported, but I must admit I am grateful that I do not own an unmodified D600 which is either out of warranty or reaching the expiry date.

[davidc]

Hehe for the Adobe thing I was happy to (repeatedly) state my view because I had no prior strong feelings about Adobe.

With Nikon I fully admit I'm already biased against them so I best not say anything

[Mike Farley]

What is strange about all of this is that it has undoubtedly cost Nikon (and/or its shutter supplier) money to fix affected cameras. Even if Nikon has been able to reclaim the full cost of repairs from a third party, it has still had people tied up while sorting out the affected cameras. The ostrich approach does them no favours, they lose money and credibility. In a competitive market when sales are falling, Nikon's lack of response is puzzling and must have deterred a number of potential purchasers both of the D600 and its succesor.

Whist there is embarassment in admitting that a product has a defect, at least by being open puchasers will have confidence that the company is doing something to fix the problem. The original Canon 5D had an issue where the mirror could become detached, yet the company was prepared to publicise the fact and fix cameras free of charge even when they were long out of warranty. A club member sent their camera, with mirror still attached, as a precautionary measure and it was repaired and returned within a few days. Which manufacturer would you rather do business with?

[davidc]

This prompted a debate at work too - some Nikon fanboys pointed out that Canon could be considered just as obtuse in their practices and referred back to an autofocus issue with 1-series cameras. Granted this is 2008 so half a decade old, but apparently there was a very definite fault with the AF system of these cameras that Canon just refused to acknowledge. Canon fanboys argue that it was just a bad AF system, not a faulty one. Apparently "well known" photographers made very public shifts from Canon to Nikon because of it!

Without knowing the full details of the Canon situation I'm not going to judge (and back then 1-series cameras were reserved in the main for actual pros, so a limited market). But I agree this paints Nikon in an extremely bad light. I wonder what the fallout will be if a flaw is found in the D610

[Mike Farley]

This prompted a debate at work too - some Nikon fanboys pointed out that Canon could be considered just as obtuse in their practices and referred back to an autofocus issue with 1-series cameras. Granted this is 2008 so half a decade old, but apparently there was a very definite fault with the AF system of these cameras that Canon just refused to acknowledge. Canon fanboys argue that it was just a bad AF system, not a faulty one. Apparently "well known" photographers made very public shifts from Canon to Nikon because of it!

Without knowing the full details of the Canon situation I'm not going to judge (and back then 1-series cameras were reserved in the main for actual pros, so a limited market). But I agree this paints Nikon in an extremely bad light. I wonder what the fallout will be if a flaw is found in the D610

What the Canon detractors are referring to is a problem with the AF system for the 1D Mk III and 1Ds Mk III cameras, where Rob Galbraith was one of the first people to write about the issue. It mainly affected focussing on fast moving subjects when shooting continuously, where the AF system did not perform as well as the one in the cameras it replaced. If you have the time and inclination, the full story is on his website.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pagee ... -8740-9068

When I wrote my previous post, it was another example which I thought about including as it does highlight the difference between Canon and Nikon when such issues arise. Admittedly Canon was a bit slow to react, but they definitely did acknowledge the problem publicly, working with Rob Galbraith and others to find a resolution. That effort was not entirely successful, it has to be said, and in the update for 1 August 2008 (Part 3) Galbraith stated that while performance was satisfactory for slow moving subjects, the system still could not easily track faster ones. Your colleagues are most likely correct in saying that the AF system had inherent flaws which could not be easily remedied, hence the duration for which the saga persisted.

Had I been a pro at the time shooting action photography whose income relied on consistently getting in focus shots of unique events, I would have jumped ship as well. That would have been a commercial decision, rather than one based on any omission on the part of the manufacturer.

[davidc]

Based on reading more discussion it seems that WAS the reason for jumping, i.e. it's a tool for a job and at that stage the D3 was the better tool.

So it might be splitting hairs, good/bad AF vs a shutter that squirts oil all over your sensor, but I think there is a difference. One was intentional, just bad, the other is bad AND unintentional!

Have we, in a nutshell, just confirmed conclusively that Canon is better and we can put that whole them & us thing to bed?

[Mike Farley]

This was never intended to be a Canon versus Nikon debate, which is pointless. Both are cameras and in the right hands both are capable of producing good shots. Which to buy and use is personal preference. It was more about how different companies react to bad news. Nobody gets it entirely right, but openness and honesty are key.

[davidc]

Sorry, I was being flippant.

[davidc]

Nikon appears to have still not learned.

http://petapixel.com/2012/04/22/nikon-r ... -accurate/

[Mike Farley]

Nikon appears to have still not learned.

http://petapixel.com/2012/04/22/nikon-r ... -accurate/

This is an old story, dating back to April 2012 and the same site reported at the end of that year that Nikon would provide a fix if requested. Chances are that later cameras will not suffer from the problem, but it does raise some questions.

• How did it get through Nikon's own testing without anyone apparently noticing?
• Why did Nikon try to blame it on the older cameras being incorrect? Especially when the evidence strongly suggests that the opposite is true?

The company does seem to have a track record of being contemptuous towards its customers, which seems an odd policy when it is consistently missing its sales targets.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/27/nikons- ... your-d800/